Townhall.com, despite it's democratically open sounding name and self-description, is a bastion of conservative columnists. Lately, I've enjoyed jumping in to the comments section and attempting to spar with the 90% conservatives who are also leaving comments. Mostly, I get ignored, but it gets me writing. Below is a reponse to "Death penalty decision a bad first step" by Debra J. Saunders, who is apparently outraged that a federal judge has found a particular protocol of lethal injection to be at least potentially "cruel and unusual" and therefore unconstitutional. This provokes catcalls from Saunders and her fans, to which I politely retort "slow down you bloodthirsty mob!"
Look, if the state is going to kill people, they ought to be darn careful about how they do it, and any legitimate question needs to be considered, the time and expense be damned. Most importantly, we need to make sure the person being executed is every bit as guilty as we think, because -- guess what? -- DNA evidence has proven that just because we say "beyond a reasonable doubt" doesn't mean the accused actually did it. So that could be your totally innocent son or daughter up there next getting their lethal injection.
The fact is, the states have executed innocent people. Even with the most up to date evidence technologies, the remotest chance of this happening again is reason enough to ban capital punishment. Plus, we do discover from time to time that innocent people have actually been railroaded. Perhaps those rare prosecutors and officers of the court who participate in railroading should get the sentences they were lobbying for, under some of you folks' eye for an eye theories?
But let's just say the criminal justice system is perfected to the point that we really really KNOW who's guilty of a capital crime, and we continue to believe that capital punishment is necessary. As our next step, yes we should take the Constitution's prohibition of "cruel and unusual punishment" seriously. If capital punishment is going to be administered, it is a solemn and sad duty, to have to say that this person has strayed so far that now we must take his life. Capital punishment is not there to satisfy some public thirst for blood and pain, which a few people here seem to be exhibiting. If the state, and by extension the people, become purposeful givers of pain and horror, this not only hurts the presumed criminal (who again, may not be the person we believe), but it creeps into our psyche and changes us. We begin to believe that we are entitled to dispense pain, that we are some kind of angels of justice. Perhaps that's who the murderer, in his or her warped mind, thought he was, but this is not who we should be. And sooner or later, we'll get carried away again, and find we've really made a mistake. That'll just be the one we find out about.
Wednesday, December 20, 2006
Thursday, December 07, 2006
Ann (Coulter), you give me a headache everytime...
...that you open your mouth or put pen to paper (so to speak, probably you type at your computer, in between nibbles on the eclair you swiped from the donut guy on his way to Guantanamo).
But the reason I'm responding this time is that the first sentence in your article, although written in your usual sarcastic, glib style, was actually interesting. It raises a good point; it would be a mistake to prematurely put too much faith in Iran and Syria. That doesn't mean we shouldn't get to know them instead of just rattling sabres back and forth. Talking was eventually helpful with the China and the former USSR, if you recall. I don't think anybody is seriously suggesting that we put Iran and Syria in charge of Iraq, so maybe this lesson has already been learned. But it's good to remind us of it. Thank you.
As for the rest of your (not-so) clever maneuvers, e.g. dismissing the use of the word "bipartisan" by putting it in "sarcastic quotes", even though the committee was co-chaired by James Baker, Secretary of State under George Bush I, Chief of Staff and later Secretary of the Treasury under Ronald Reagan and so on and so forth; condemning all Democrats and liberals straight to hell (that one never gets tiresome!); insinuating that Guantanamo prisoners are downright pampered and should feel lucky to be there -- oh, just give me a break. And an aspirin. --Ravingmoderate.com
-- In response to Ann Coulter's recent posting on townhall.com, making reference to the Iraq Study Group's conclusions, and entitled "Incoming Congress to Launch Operation Surrender".
But the reason I'm responding this time is that the first sentence in your article, although written in your usual sarcastic, glib style, was actually interesting. It raises a good point; it would be a mistake to prematurely put too much faith in Iran and Syria. That doesn't mean we shouldn't get to know them instead of just rattling sabres back and forth. Talking was eventually helpful with the China and the former USSR, if you recall. I don't think anybody is seriously suggesting that we put Iran and Syria in charge of Iraq, so maybe this lesson has already been learned. But it's good to remind us of it. Thank you.
As for the rest of your (not-so) clever maneuvers, e.g. dismissing the use of the word "bipartisan" by putting it in "sarcastic quotes", even though the committee was co-chaired by James Baker, Secretary of State under George Bush I, Chief of Staff and later Secretary of the Treasury under Ronald Reagan and so on and so forth; condemning all Democrats and liberals straight to hell (that one never gets tiresome!); insinuating that Guantanamo prisoners are downright pampered and should feel lucky to be there -- oh, just give me a break. And an aspirin. --Ravingmoderate.com
-- In response to Ann Coulter's recent posting on townhall.com, making reference to the Iraq Study Group's conclusions, and entitled "Incoming Congress to Launch Operation Surrender".
Tuesday, December 05, 2006
First Muslim Elected to Congress
Dennis Prager, conservative columnist at townhall.com, writes in his column at townhall.com:
Keith Ellison, D-Minn., the first Muslim elected to the United States Congress, has announced that he will not take his oath of office on the Bible, but on the bible of Islam, the Koran.
He should not be allowed to do so -- not because of any American hostility to the Koran, but because the act undermines American civilization.
My response follows:
There is perhaps a powerful American tradition of swearing in upon a Bible. However, there is no American law insisting on the use of a Bible, and even if this was made a requirement, it would be unconstitutional as an establishment of religion by the state under the First Amendment. It's not that you can't use a Bible; it's just that you can't make somebody use a Bible.
While it is possible to imagine fairly ridiculous books being used for swearing in, I hope, Mr. Prager, that you are not implying that the Koran is one of them; there are over 1.3 billion Muslims in the world, second only to Christianity, according to adherents.com. While the ratio of Muslims to Christians in the USA is much smaller, this nation was supposed to have been founded in large part on principles of equality and of religious freedom -- many of our early settlers were religious minorities, albeit largely variants of Christianity, fleeing oppression in Europe. And this freedom of religion is embodied in the First Amendment.
Now, if someone was actually to attempt to be sworn in on, as Mr. Prager suggests, a copy of 'Mein Kampf', I hope that the people would have the good sense to vote him out next time around.
But no matter the book, the oath is to the Constitution of the United States of America, not to the religion contained in the book, and is binding as such. You of course realize that when Joe Lieberman, who is Jewish, swears in to the Senate as he has done several times, he too is swearing an oath to the Constitution, not to Jesus or Christianity, even if his hand is upon the New Testament. Placing one's hand on a book is symbolically an indication that one is swearing before that which one considers the holiest, and therefore takes the oath seriously. If we are going to be that attached to the symbolism, perhaps we SHOULD ask Mr. Lieberman to use a Torah instead, since that is presumably the religious document closest to his heart.
Somehow, though, I suspect that if Mr. Ellison, as a Muslim, had decided to take his oath upon the Bible, you or some other fearmongering commentator would have protested against that instead, as though the act had a taint upon it. "He can't swear upon our Bible, he doesn't accept it as the ultimate truth!" Looking at the issue from another angle, what advice would you give to a Christian, called as a witness in a Saudi Arabian court of law and asked to swear in upon a Koran? Would you say, "when in Rome..." or would you would be yowling against it?
If what we are seeking is unanimity, perhaps we should have elected officials swear in upon a copy of the Constitution itself, since this is the loyalty we are supposed to be trying to elicit.
Personally, I am not a member of any particular religion. Should I ever run and be elected to any office (and I am sure you would work against me doing so), I will inform you, Mr. Prager, about what book or books I swear in on. I find much of value in many religions, so perhaps I will bring a stack of them. This would also serve as a symbol that I intended to represent all of the people, not just Christians or Jews, or Muslims, or Buddhists, or Atheists, or Scientologists. Although Mr. Ellison has instead chosen a single book, I believe that this is also what he intends to do. --RavingModerate.com
Added the following a couple of days later in response to those who are paranoid about the proselytizing aspects of Islam:
I think it's worth noting that a significant number of Christians think we should all be following Christian laws, that this is or should be a Christian state, that the Bible is a higher law than the Constitution etc. I think that the Constitution allows one to hold such beliefs, even act upon them, but within limits. Freedom of religion and separation of church and state, taken together with other laws, are a way of saying you can be who you want to at the deepest level, but you have to also allow others the same freedom. I think this is what we should be working toward, and this is how the Constitution protects the religious and general freedom of both Christians and Muslims in this country, while also protecting those who wish to follow other paths.
Keith Ellison, D-Minn., the first Muslim elected to the United States Congress, has announced that he will not take his oath of office on the Bible, but on the bible of Islam, the Koran.
He should not be allowed to do so -- not because of any American hostility to the Koran, but because the act undermines American civilization.
My response follows:
There is perhaps a powerful American tradition of swearing in upon a Bible. However, there is no American law insisting on the use of a Bible, and even if this was made a requirement, it would be unconstitutional as an establishment of religion by the state under the First Amendment. It's not that you can't use a Bible; it's just that you can't make somebody use a Bible.
While it is possible to imagine fairly ridiculous books being used for swearing in, I hope, Mr. Prager, that you are not implying that the Koran is one of them; there are over 1.3 billion Muslims in the world, second only to Christianity, according to adherents.com. While the ratio of Muslims to Christians in the USA is much smaller, this nation was supposed to have been founded in large part on principles of equality and of religious freedom -- many of our early settlers were religious minorities, albeit largely variants of Christianity, fleeing oppression in Europe. And this freedom of religion is embodied in the First Amendment.
Now, if someone was actually to attempt to be sworn in on, as Mr. Prager suggests, a copy of 'Mein Kampf', I hope that the people would have the good sense to vote him out next time around.
But no matter the book, the oath is to the Constitution of the United States of America, not to the religion contained in the book, and is binding as such. You of course realize that when Joe Lieberman, who is Jewish, swears in to the Senate as he has done several times, he too is swearing an oath to the Constitution, not to Jesus or Christianity, even if his hand is upon the New Testament. Placing one's hand on a book is symbolically an indication that one is swearing before that which one considers the holiest, and therefore takes the oath seriously. If we are going to be that attached to the symbolism, perhaps we SHOULD ask Mr. Lieberman to use a Torah instead, since that is presumably the religious document closest to his heart.
Somehow, though, I suspect that if Mr. Ellison, as a Muslim, had decided to take his oath upon the Bible, you or some other fearmongering commentator would have protested against that instead, as though the act had a taint upon it. "He can't swear upon our Bible, he doesn't accept it as the ultimate truth!" Looking at the issue from another angle, what advice would you give to a Christian, called as a witness in a Saudi Arabian court of law and asked to swear in upon a Koran? Would you say, "when in Rome..." or would you would be yowling against it?
If what we are seeking is unanimity, perhaps we should have elected officials swear in upon a copy of the Constitution itself, since this is the loyalty we are supposed to be trying to elicit.
Personally, I am not a member of any particular religion. Should I ever run and be elected to any office (and I am sure you would work against me doing so), I will inform you, Mr. Prager, about what book or books I swear in on. I find much of value in many religions, so perhaps I will bring a stack of them. This would also serve as a symbol that I intended to represent all of the people, not just Christians or Jews, or Muslims, or Buddhists, or Atheists, or Scientologists. Although Mr. Ellison has instead chosen a single book, I believe that this is also what he intends to do. --RavingModerate.com
Added the following a couple of days later in response to those who are paranoid about the proselytizing aspects of Islam:
I think it's worth noting that a significant number of Christians think we should all be following Christian laws, that this is or should be a Christian state, that the Bible is a higher law than the Constitution etc. I think that the Constitution allows one to hold such beliefs, even act upon them, but within limits. Freedom of religion and separation of church and state, taken together with other laws, are a way of saying you can be who you want to at the deepest level, but you have to also allow others the same freedom. I think this is what we should be working toward, and this is how the Constitution protects the religious and general freedom of both Christians and Muslims in this country, while also protecting those who wish to follow other paths.
Monday, November 06, 2006
Military Times Says "Rumsfeld Must Go"
The Military Times has published an editorial entitled "Rumsfeld Must Go" in their magazines, the Army Times, the Navy Times, the Marine Times, the Air Force Times. This site is not affiliated with the Military Times publishing organization. The Rumsfeld article can currently be found at any of these URLS:
Army Times
Navy Times
Air Force Times
Marine Times
To those in harm's way, in any conflict and on any side, I only wish you peace and a speedy return home.
Army Times
Navy Times
Air Force Times
Marine Times
To those in harm's way, in any conflict and on any side, I only wish you peace and a speedy return home.
Saturday, November 04, 2006
"CIA Wants Prison Tactics Secret"
Original Article Here
According to this article in the New York Times, the CIA wants these tactics secret -- prisoners would somehow be forbidden from disclosing what happened to them -- so that Qaeda can't adapt. Obviously, the problem with this sort of secrecy is that there is no accountability. I also am not impressed with assurances that various related rollbacks in prisoners' rights "do not apply to U.S. citizens".
American citizens, and all semi-to-fully conscious human beings, should be concerned that our prisons, whether for petty crimes or for the containment of "terrorism", do not become the Gulags we once vilified in the days of the Cold War. If we do not know what is going on, there may be -- no, make that there WILL be innocent and relatively innocent people subjected to horrendous abuses. We the People cannot grant unfettered power without accountability to our government. Even in a great democracy, there are nuts running around vying for, and often gaining, power. Without accountability, the terror will come more from them than anyone else they may be claiming to thwart for our safety.
According to this article in the New York Times, the CIA wants these tactics secret -- prisoners would somehow be forbidden from disclosing what happened to them -- so that Qaeda can't adapt. Obviously, the problem with this sort of secrecy is that there is no accountability. I also am not impressed with assurances that various related rollbacks in prisoners' rights "do not apply to U.S. citizens".
American citizens, and all semi-to-fully conscious human beings, should be concerned that our prisons, whether for petty crimes or for the containment of "terrorism", do not become the Gulags we once vilified in the days of the Cold War. If we do not know what is going on, there may be -- no, make that there WILL be innocent and relatively innocent people subjected to horrendous abuses. We the People cannot grant unfettered power without accountability to our government. Even in a great democracy, there are nuts running around vying for, and often gaining, power. Without accountability, the terror will come more from them than anyone else they may be claiming to thwart for our safety.
Thursday, September 28, 2006
Remember, "Detainees" = "Prisoners"
Sent a note by email to Nancy Pelosi, after seeing her on a press conference on the news or C-Span. I was at a friend's house, on our way out, so I didn't catch all the details, but she gave three reasons for the following. The third escapes me, so I didn't list it, but it wasn't the third thing that I thought was most important!
Hi,
Saw some of your press conference on TV today. You gave a reporter three reasons why detainees in the so-called War on Terror should receive Habeas Corpus rights. Two of these were to protect American soldiers, and to protect American citizens. I think it's equally important that we emphasize protecting innocent accusees, be they foreign or domestic. We already know that innocent people are sometimes convicted, even with all procedural rights allocated to them. Without Habeas Corpus, the innocent don't stand a chance, and unscrupulous people in government, even our own President, have the increased capability to simply make people they don't like disappear, on a mere pretext of some arbitrary designation. It is no more acceptable that this happens to a Muslim or someone of foreign citizenship than to a Christian or an American Citizen. We must be a country that neither tortures people nor arbitrarily takes away their freedom. At least I hope that's what our Constitution means.
Tuesday, September 05, 2006
V for Vendetta, a Not So Distant Future
Any movie reviews from me will be rather late, because I almost never go to movies. I recently got the DVD by mail order rental service, though. Movies can be a great way to explore politics and philosophy, though. I found the Wachowski Brothers latest flick to be stimulating, but not quite like the "Matrix", which I could talk about all day, even the sequels.
"V" is sort of a 1984 meets Zorro bin Laden as played by the Phantom of the Opera. I liked it, but I think it was mostly that the dystopian aspect worked and struck a chord with modern times, depicting a not so distant future. When you think about it, people in America have disappeared and wound up in Guantanamo without hearings or trials or even any real process. Some of them are terrorists, but some of them... aren't. We don't know for sure which, because there is no process. So the stormtroopers and the bags thrown over people's heads are getting close to home these days. Not to mention, this is the not so distant past for many nations in Central America. Meanwhile the concept of the character of V, though he was well acted, came across as naive, a bit unbelievable, and anachronistic. But I like Zorro and the Scarlet Pimpernel, and feel the pain of the Phantom of the Opera (and of political prisoners). Casting such a character as a terrorist with bombs and a taste for downright vengeance, in contrast to his basic swashbuckling charm, does provide for an interesting thought experiment, and may help us to understand what some people might see in a bin Laden (I much prefer a Gandhi, and think he would do much more good). The ending was a big yawn, reminiscent of "Dead Poets Society", a mild catharsis that comes across as a simplistic quasi-resolution to a world gone mad, followed by a generic eulogy. But the movie is still worth a spin, and talking about over coffee afterwards.
"V" is sort of a 1984 meets Zorro bin Laden as played by the Phantom of the Opera. I liked it, but I think it was mostly that the dystopian aspect worked and struck a chord with modern times, depicting a not so distant future. When you think about it, people in America have disappeared and wound up in Guantanamo without hearings or trials or even any real process. Some of them are terrorists, but some of them... aren't. We don't know for sure which, because there is no process. So the stormtroopers and the bags thrown over people's heads are getting close to home these days. Not to mention, this is the not so distant past for many nations in Central America. Meanwhile the concept of the character of V, though he was well acted, came across as naive, a bit unbelievable, and anachronistic. But I like Zorro and the Scarlet Pimpernel, and feel the pain of the Phantom of the Opera (and of political prisoners). Casting such a character as a terrorist with bombs and a taste for downright vengeance, in contrast to his basic swashbuckling charm, does provide for an interesting thought experiment, and may help us to understand what some people might see in a bin Laden (I much prefer a Gandhi, and think he would do much more good). The ending was a big yawn, reminiscent of "Dead Poets Society", a mild catharsis that comes across as a simplistic quasi-resolution to a world gone mad, followed by a generic eulogy. But the movie is still worth a spin, and talking about over coffee afterwards.
In fact, reading my own review reminds me that, in contrast to what many people on many sides of the political spectrum would say, I think it is more naive to believe that you will solve problems with bombs than to believe that you will solve them with love.
Wednesday, August 30, 2006
Am I a Baby Boomer????
OK, here's another post to BBC today, this time in response to the question "Are You a Baby Boomer?" I don't know, am I?
Born in 1963, I'm on the cusp between being labelled a "Baby Boomer" or "Generation X". The best of the Boomers were striving for freedom and harmony, questioning authority in order to think for themselves and arrive at a rational, rather than an inculcated, worldview. Sometimes the quest to throw off chains led to excess, like drug overdoses or people being too quick to callously divorce. But even these problems were a painful side effect of a process of maturation, wherein people began to realize that they were entitled to be in charge of their own bodies and destinies. Some traditional values may need reclaiming, but only if they make sense, not just because they are traditional.
Note that I was also responding to some other posts that seemed to characterize the 60's as a period of wretched excess, leading to more of the same to this day. There may be more wretched excess; certainly less of it is kept hidden. But divorce, the increase of which someone lamented, should be acceptable, not a subject for whispered gossip. While people should proceed with some sensitivity that it is wrenching for a human to lose his or her mate, to be permanently tethered to another person by anything other than one's own free will amounts to slavery. Likewise, I am no longer a big fan of recreational drugs, but, well, it's your body. Throwing a user or addict in jail doesn't help them take better care of their body, and even rehabilitation may be nobody's business to enforce if a person chooses otherwise and has done no criminal harm to others. And whose to say that Timothy Leary didn't actually make a positive contribution to society?
Born in 1963, I'm on the cusp between being labelled a "Baby Boomer" or "Generation X". The best of the Boomers were striving for freedom and harmony, questioning authority in order to think for themselves and arrive at a rational, rather than an inculcated, worldview. Sometimes the quest to throw off chains led to excess, like drug overdoses or people being too quick to callously divorce. But even these problems were a painful side effect of a process of maturation, wherein people began to realize that they were entitled to be in charge of their own bodies and destinies. Some traditional values may need reclaiming, but only if they make sense, not just because they are traditional.
Note that I was also responding to some other posts that seemed to characterize the 60's as a period of wretched excess, leading to more of the same to this day. There may be more wretched excess; certainly less of it is kept hidden. But divorce, the increase of which someone lamented, should be acceptable, not a subject for whispered gossip. While people should proceed with some sensitivity that it is wrenching for a human to lose his or her mate, to be permanently tethered to another person by anything other than one's own free will amounts to slavery. Likewise, I am no longer a big fan of recreational drugs, but, well, it's your body. Throwing a user or addict in jail doesn't help them take better care of their body, and even rehabilitation may be nobody's business to enforce if a person chooses otherwise and has done no criminal harm to others. And whose to say that Timothy Leary didn't actually make a positive contribution to society?
Iran v. Bush
Just posted this to the BBC Have Your Say, in response to the question "Has Iran Benefited from the War on Terror?":
I think that in the Middle East, Bush's handling of the so-called War on Terror has tended to boost anyone seen as standing up to him. Mr. Ahmadinejad, interviewed by 60 Minutes, came across to me as no more of a madman than our Mr. Bush. The former's claim that Iran is entitled to nuclear power is as valid as anyone's, if perhaps also disingenuous and ultimately misguided (even peaceful nukes have the pitfall of dealing with the waste, and the risk of another Chernobyl). His veneration of suicide bombers was shocking, but then most cultures (mistakenly, I think, ours included) venerate dying and killing for a cause. We could talk to Iran, but I hear a drumbeat.
I think that in the Middle East, Bush's handling of the so-called War on Terror has tended to boost anyone seen as standing up to him. Mr. Ahmadinejad, interviewed by 60 Minutes, came across to me as no more of a madman than our Mr. Bush. The former's claim that Iran is entitled to nuclear power is as valid as anyone's, if perhaps also disingenuous and ultimately misguided (even peaceful nukes have the pitfall of dealing with the waste, and the risk of another Chernobyl). His veneration of suicide bombers was shocking, but then most cultures (mistakenly, I think, ours included) venerate dying and killing for a cause. We could talk to Iran, but I hear a drumbeat.
Saturday, August 26, 2006
Water: The Most Essential of Resources
Posted to BBC discussion today:
Water, earth, and air are all essential to our existences. Why are we so cavalier about dumping our waste into them, and depleting our best resources? Further, we need to understand that the entire ecology evolved over eons to become a place in which humans thrive. If we continue to blindly alter it, it will no longer support us.
Water, earth, and air are all essential to our existences. Why are we so cavalier about dumping our waste into them, and depleting our best resources? Further, we need to understand that the entire ecology evolved over eons to become a place in which humans thrive. If we continue to blindly alter it, it will no longer support us.
Saturday, July 22, 2006
Lebanon II
Is no one even intrigued anymore by the idea that Gandhi and Martin Luther King apparently won their struggles? Maybe not permanently and conclusively in every regard desired, but as much, probably much more, than any war has ever truly won anything worthwhile.
Lebanon
I submitted to the BBC a few minutes ago:
Israel and Hezbollah both seem to think they have something to gain in this conflict. Presumably Iran and Syria agree with Hezbollah and think they have something to gain. And now the Bush Administration thinks that something should be gained before a cease fire is ever implemented. There is nothing to be gained from this senseless destruction except more destruction, and no one will win in the long run. The world is even more rapidly becoming a less stable place.
Israel and Hezbollah both seem to think they have something to gain in this conflict. Presumably Iran and Syria agree with Hezbollah and think they have something to gain. And now the Bush Administration thinks that something should be gained before a cease fire is ever implemented. There is nothing to be gained from this senseless destruction except more destruction, and no one will win in the long run. The world is even more rapidly becoming a less stable place.
Wednesday, July 19, 2006
Deep Thought of the Day 2
I think that the most important contribution a human being can make to the world is to positively influence the way people think. Building a multi-billion dollar corporation: that's just showing off, and leaves us with another many-headed monster to boot. Nope, deep thoughts -- that's the legacy to leave. But deep thoughts that lead to powerful actions, and (sigh) to love in a universe that sometimes seems so heartless.
Tuesday, July 04, 2006
Deep Thought of the Day
"He made a lot of money, he had a good time, the world suffered for it on his behalf."
How many of us would want to leave this for a legacy? Yet how many people, especially those with some power, actually do leave this legacy? And how tempting it is to try and live this way. This is what we should struggle (peacefully!) against, and try to create avenues where we can all be successful in life, yet not leave such a legacy.
How many of us would want to leave this for a legacy? Yet how many people, especially those with some power, actually do leave this legacy? And how tempting it is to try and live this way. This is what we should struggle (peacefully!) against, and try to create avenues where we can all be successful in life, yet not leave such a legacy.
Saturday, July 01, 2006
Alleged Rape and Killings by American soldiers.
See story at New York Times
My comment is the same I made a month ago with regard to the Haditha incident:
"The greater lesson is that war always leads to such horrors. 'Accidental' and 'collateral' horrors happen, and then there will be those that are intentional, although likely motivated by panic or psychosis. It does not reflect on all soldiers, but it does reflect on the nature of war."
I do not remotely suggest in this case, however, suggest that the incident might have anything directly to do with policy, although rape as a method of terrorism has been suggested in other wars involving other countries. But I do suggest that we need to make war obsolete. The intentions of soldiers and their willingness to sacrifice their lives may be noble, but the intentions of governments rarely are, and the results almost never are. The most likely exception, the position of the Allies in WWII, may have been noble and necessary, but we have lost site of the goal of then moving past the necessity of further wars and the sacrifice of human lives, and even crossed over the line into fighting optional wars, with the concomitant horrors all wars, noble and necessary or not, precipitate. Still worse, we seem to be addicted to war, and use our just war theories and our defense of the honor of soldiers as an excuse for our addiction. Young people on every side believe they are signing up for a noble cause; can they possibly all be right?
My comment is the same I made a month ago with regard to the Haditha incident:
"The greater lesson is that war always leads to such horrors. 'Accidental' and 'collateral' horrors happen, and then there will be those that are intentional, although likely motivated by panic or psychosis. It does not reflect on all soldiers, but it does reflect on the nature of war."
I do not remotely suggest in this case, however, suggest that the incident might have anything directly to do with policy, although rape as a method of terrorism has been suggested in other wars involving other countries. But I do suggest that we need to make war obsolete. The intentions of soldiers and their willingness to sacrifice their lives may be noble, but the intentions of governments rarely are, and the results almost never are. The most likely exception, the position of the Allies in WWII, may have been noble and necessary, but we have lost site of the goal of then moving past the necessity of further wars and the sacrifice of human lives, and even crossed over the line into fighting optional wars, with the concomitant horrors all wars, noble and necessary or not, precipitate. Still worse, we seem to be addicted to war, and use our just war theories and our defense of the honor of soldiers as an excuse for our addiction. Young people on every side believe they are signing up for a noble cause; can they possibly all be right?
Monday, June 26, 2006
Notes for "How to Save the World"
...Without Really Trying
Part I is "The World Needs Saving".
Part II is the "How to"
Or maybe vice versa, just to get down to brass tacks.
Half Measures:
Hybrid Shmybrid...
Recycling Shmecycling...
Saving the Planet in the Days of "Terrorism"
-Remarkable Goodness of Humanity (?!)
-Nod to Pattern Theory, Watch that Chaos!
-Still Worth Saving
-Still Savable!
-Save the Planet, Unite Her People!
Note I sent to the BBC have your say 6/26:
A few Earth-saving suggestions... Keep your PC and peripherals until replacement is completely necessary or at least a really big leap forward beyond the abstract numbers. Use your PC (with file backups) to go as paperless as possible. Buy a used PC. Give your old PC to that genius kid building a supercomputer from used parts. Manufacturers, make PCs more easy to upgrade without replacement.
Part I is "The World Needs Saving".
Part II is the "How to"
Or maybe vice versa, just to get down to brass tacks.
Half Measures:
Hybrid Shmybrid...
Recycling Shmecycling...
Saving the Planet in the Days of "Terrorism"
-Remarkable Goodness of Humanity (?!)
-Nod to Pattern Theory, Watch that Chaos!
-Still Worth Saving
-Still Savable!
-Save the Planet, Unite Her People!
Note I sent to the BBC have your say 6/26:
A few Earth-saving suggestions... Keep your PC and peripherals until replacement is completely necessary or at least a really big leap forward beyond the abstract numbers. Use your PC (with file backups) to go as paperless as possible. Buy a used PC. Give your old PC to that genius kid building a supercomputer from used parts. Manufacturers, make PCs more easy to upgrade without replacement.
Friday, June 23, 2006
Wake Up!
The world is being torn apart in so many ways, and you should care! Things may be critical!
Tuesday, June 20, 2006
Principles of Diplomacy I
Countries should not continuously seek to put other countries into a bad position. Most often it will be far more constructive to find ways to put both countries into a mutually advantageous position. Advantage does not have to be one over the other. "Win-win" is not just business or diplomatic jargon - it is the essence of cooperation.
Monday, June 19, 2006
Patterns of Survival
So patterns that tend to survive do, statistically speaking. As someone pointed out, the apparently fittest do not always survive. That simply means that in a chaotic universe, there is no perfectly fit entity, and no entity is fit for every set of circumstances. But on the whole, those patterns whose continued existences fit in best with the resultant overall pattern will survive and/or propagate. Mutations result as the kaleidoscope wheel turns, and the so the pattern evolves, and so does the nature of what it is to be fit and thus to fit into the pattern.
Given the tautology of survival of the fittest, it seems possible that the intent and struggle to survive and propagate are in some sense emergent properties of the tautological nature of evolution. For example, humans tend to think it is "important" that they themselves, that their families, that their lifestyle, that their ethnic and religious groups and beliefs all continue to thrive, that is to survive, propagate and continue comfortably and with room for error, generally at the expense of some "other".
Since we tend to follow these instincts as though they were handed down on stone tablets -- whatever that is supposed to mean -- we may want to question them when we discover that they may be some sort of emergent property. However, given that they are a fairly instinctive part of our nature, we may instead want to mold our desire to survive and thrive to the most effective models possible.
I believe that some progressive and religious leaders, notably Gandhi and M.L. King, were in a sense offering us a way out of prisoners' dilemma problems by offering us a code of ethics in which we could -- by propagating the patterns they suggest -- essentially know that the other was working in our interests, and we were working in theirs, because all people, despite their diversity, were all unified by working for the "greater good" of all humanity. Further, if we relate their programs to prisoners' dilemmas, they were trying to show that the greater good, with attention to the well-being of each individual as well, would in fact produce the greatest payoff for the most individuals. Even those who sacrificed disproportionate wealth would benefits because of the love and security they would gain in a compassionate and caring world. The beginning of such a world was a set of rules that were not imposed, but accepted because of their compelling nature. Why were they compelling? Perhaps G and MLK would say because they came from God. Perhaps so, indeed, but perhaps such ideas produce a certain level of rapture because they in fact contribute to the survival of the individual AND the species. They are reassuring to the pattern with the emergent property of caring about its place in evolution.
In a mosaic, pieces of rock or glass of many shapes, sizes and colors may be fit together to form a strong, long lasting, and beautiful pattern. The shapes and sizes are not important so much as finding the ways the pieces fit together. The colors are not important at all to the resiliency of the finished product, but each color adds to the beauty of the whole.
Given the tautology of survival of the fittest, it seems possible that the intent and struggle to survive and propagate are in some sense emergent properties of the tautological nature of evolution. For example, humans tend to think it is "important" that they themselves, that their families, that their lifestyle, that their ethnic and religious groups and beliefs all continue to thrive, that is to survive, propagate and continue comfortably and with room for error, generally at the expense of some "other".
Since we tend to follow these instincts as though they were handed down on stone tablets -- whatever that is supposed to mean -- we may want to question them when we discover that they may be some sort of emergent property. However, given that they are a fairly instinctive part of our nature, we may instead want to mold our desire to survive and thrive to the most effective models possible.
I believe that some progressive and religious leaders, notably Gandhi and M.L. King, were in a sense offering us a way out of prisoners' dilemma problems by offering us a code of ethics in which we could -- by propagating the patterns they suggest -- essentially know that the other was working in our interests, and we were working in theirs, because all people, despite their diversity, were all unified by working for the "greater good" of all humanity. Further, if we relate their programs to prisoners' dilemmas, they were trying to show that the greater good, with attention to the well-being of each individual as well, would in fact produce the greatest payoff for the most individuals. Even those who sacrificed disproportionate wealth would benefits because of the love and security they would gain in a compassionate and caring world. The beginning of such a world was a set of rules that were not imposed, but accepted because of their compelling nature. Why were they compelling? Perhaps G and MLK would say because they came from God. Perhaps so, indeed, but perhaps such ideas produce a certain level of rapture because they in fact contribute to the survival of the individual AND the species. They are reassuring to the pattern with the emergent property of caring about its place in evolution.
In a mosaic, pieces of rock or glass of many shapes, sizes and colors may be fit together to form a strong, long lasting, and beautiful pattern. The shapes and sizes are not important so much as finding the ways the pieces fit together. The colors are not important at all to the resiliency of the finished product, but each color adds to the beauty of the whole.
Tuesday, June 06, 2006
Happy 6/6/6!
Well, I'm going to take all kinds of heat (let's hope not literally) for trying to make a holiday out of today's date 06/06/'06. I grew up reading comic books, occasionally watching TV preachers, and with the Catholic Church on the periphery of my awareness by way of the nearness of the University of Notre Dame (where my father taught and which I eventually attended) and other influences. Frankly, devil stuff scares me. 6/6/6 -- perhaps this will be an especially bad day!
"PISH POSH!" screams the Skeptic side of me. Make that "BU-U-U-L-L-S-H-I-I-I-T-T-T!" as I think, first, that "pish posh" is a really lame scoff, and second, of the tyranny of words and concepts that we live under. Words and concepts are also what get us through life, forming one of the latticeworks that allow us to function as an organized pattern in a universe that is, on the whole, chaotic. Words and concepts are also used in religion and in government to tell the populace as a whole that "a few of us know all the answers and therefore we will guide what you do." But they don't know the answers. Many leaders, particular religious ones and politicians piggybacking on religion, were raised to believe they know the answers, and like any upbringing, they probably came away with a few good ones and some bad ones. But leaders are human beings, who, as youths, were told by other human beings that certain human beings got the answers directly from God. Despite the impolitic screaming of my inner Skeptic, I don't really want to insult anybody's religion. It is just that I trust the intellect that God/the Universe/Whatever You Want to Call It gave me, and it sincerely questions these things. Frankly, I suspect many of the so-called leaders don't believe it either.
Now, this doesn't make me "down" with some counter-deity. Today, I just want to celebrate my freedom from the words and concepts that try to tie God down, and that try to tie us all down. Satanism certainly doesn't come any closer, it just borrows the bad guy character from the Judaeo-Christian tradition, as a target for worship in order to thumb its collective nose at that tradition.
On the other hand, I've been intrigued by a small body of literature that pops up once in a while to personify the Devil as misunderstood. What this says to me is that Satan is the literary personification of all that the churches that created the character feared. Some of what the character personified really should be avoided; other things, perhaps, we just need to get comfortable with, maybe even revel in, because there is beauty even beyond the boundaries of the world of Mayberry so many of us think we are pining for. Forget about the guy with the cape and the horns himself; he is just a literary device.
I don't want chaos in the world. The pattern of our existence is holding to an extent, other disruptions in which the supposedly religious are largely complicit notwithstanding (war, environmental devastation -- and here I'll give some credit to the Catholic Church as an organization for protesting these problems).
On the "shadowy" side of things, the sole commandment "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law" has been attributed to Aleister Crowley. Being a proponent of the rights of all people, I never thought that was very suitable, but only because it was too sweeping, for how many people "wilt" wantonly destroy others for their own pleasure or gain. I am also a proponent of great freedom for all people, freedom to do but not to infringe upon the freedom of others. So Crowley's maxim might be modified as a basis for some simple rules from which the Golden Rule and the Ten Commandments can also be derived as good rules of thumb, if not absolutes (certainly our mostly Judaeo-Christian government already treats them far less as absolutes than I would):
1. Do what thou wilt,
2. but do your absolute best to do as much good for others, and as little harm to others, as possible;
3. and respect the equal right of others to do the same.
4. It is strongly suggested you take good care of yourself and do not harm yourself, as well.
And that's how I intend to celebrate 6/6/6.
But, due to the side of me that remains a bit brainwashed and nervous, I am definitely not going anywhere near the opening day of the remake of the movie, "The Omen".
"PISH POSH!" screams the Skeptic side of me. Make that "BU-U-U-L-L-S-H-I-I-I-T-T-T!" as I think, first, that "pish posh" is a really lame scoff, and second, of the tyranny of words and concepts that we live under. Words and concepts are also what get us through life, forming one of the latticeworks that allow us to function as an organized pattern in a universe that is, on the whole, chaotic. Words and concepts are also used in religion and in government to tell the populace as a whole that "a few of us know all the answers and therefore we will guide what you do." But they don't know the answers. Many leaders, particular religious ones and politicians piggybacking on religion, were raised to believe they know the answers, and like any upbringing, they probably came away with a few good ones and some bad ones. But leaders are human beings, who, as youths, were told by other human beings that certain human beings got the answers directly from God. Despite the impolitic screaming of my inner Skeptic, I don't really want to insult anybody's religion. It is just that I trust the intellect that God/the Universe/Whatever You Want to Call It gave me, and it sincerely questions these things. Frankly, I suspect many of the so-called leaders don't believe it either.
Now, this doesn't make me "down" with some counter-deity. Today, I just want to celebrate my freedom from the words and concepts that try to tie God down, and that try to tie us all down. Satanism certainly doesn't come any closer, it just borrows the bad guy character from the Judaeo-Christian tradition, as a target for worship in order to thumb its collective nose at that tradition.
On the other hand, I've been intrigued by a small body of literature that pops up once in a while to personify the Devil as misunderstood. What this says to me is that Satan is the literary personification of all that the churches that created the character feared. Some of what the character personified really should be avoided; other things, perhaps, we just need to get comfortable with, maybe even revel in, because there is beauty even beyond the boundaries of the world of Mayberry so many of us think we are pining for. Forget about the guy with the cape and the horns himself; he is just a literary device.
I don't want chaos in the world. The pattern of our existence is holding to an extent, other disruptions in which the supposedly religious are largely complicit notwithstanding (war, environmental devastation -- and here I'll give some credit to the Catholic Church as an organization for protesting these problems).
On the "shadowy" side of things, the sole commandment "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law" has been attributed to Aleister Crowley. Being a proponent of the rights of all people, I never thought that was very suitable, but only because it was too sweeping, for how many people "wilt" wantonly destroy others for their own pleasure or gain. I am also a proponent of great freedom for all people, freedom to do but not to infringe upon the freedom of others. So Crowley's maxim might be modified as a basis for some simple rules from which the Golden Rule and the Ten Commandments can also be derived as good rules of thumb, if not absolutes (certainly our mostly Judaeo-Christian government already treats them far less as absolutes than I would):
1. Do what thou wilt,
2. but do your absolute best to do as much good for others, and as little harm to others, as possible;
3. and respect the equal right of others to do the same.
4. It is strongly suggested you take good care of yourself and do not harm yourself, as well.
And that's how I intend to celebrate 6/6/6.
But, due to the side of me that remains a bit brainwashed and nervous, I am definitely not going anywhere near the opening day of the remake of the movie, "The Omen".
Wednesday, May 31, 2006
Haditha
Comment I submitted to BBC Have Your Say on the incident:
As with Abu Ghraib, it should be asked whether there were orders or policies from higher up that led to this horrible incident. The greater lesson is that war always leads to such horrors. "Accidental" and "collateral" horrors happen, and then there will be those that are intentional, although likely motivated by panic or psychosis. It does not reflect on all soldiers, but it does reflect on the nature of war.
As with Abu Ghraib, it should be asked whether there were orders or policies from higher up that led to this horrible incident. The greater lesson is that war always leads to such horrors. "Accidental" and "collateral" horrors happen, and then there will be those that are intentional, although likely motivated by panic or psychosis. It does not reflect on all soldiers, but it does reflect on the nature of war.
Saturday, May 20, 2006
Pattern Theory of Human Survival
A little crystallization occurring today... The primary theme or focus of my "pattern theory" is "The Pattern Theory of Human Survival". Central points that will develop are that
1. "Survival of the Fittest", while shown to be a sort of truism both in statistical terms and in random, chaotic terms (sometimes the apparently fittest do not survive while the "less fit" do because of individualized circumstances), the oversimplified notion of survival of the fittest has led to an overemphasis on competition between organisms or between human cultures
2. Human beings, or any pattern, have evolved in and are adapted to a diverse environment, containing a huge multiplicity of organismic and also "non-living" (the reason for the quotes will be become clear) patterns. That is to say we come from a complex world of many kinds of people and other living beings, all existing in a complex environment.
3. In terms of survival and propagation, it is all too often a huge mistake for humans, who choose their modes of existence, to try to minimize or eliminate, or to allow the minimization or elimination of other well-developed patterns of existence, such as other organisms (extinction), other "sorts" of people (discrimination, war, genocide), or beneficial states of being (clean air, clean water) in order to attempt to dominate a larger portion of the overall pattern of existence, since this alters the pattern which supports us in such a way as to tend to hasten our own extinction.
4. Rather, we can more gently nudge and nurture those modes of existence that enhance our well-being, which can be summed up in a word: "diversity". This has become a loaded term; it really just means multiplicity, a state of many. There are many things, such as those listed above (people, organisms, a clean environment), in the world that benefit us, yet we often refuse to recognize them when they seem to stand in the way of a short term goal, such as, say, industrial production.
5. Obviously, every pattern that evolves means that other contrary patterns do not exist at that moment, and other patterns will never exist. The essence of chaos theory is that every action everywhere changes history at least a little bit. Every state of being carries with it the negation of its opposite, which, in the overall scheme of things, means every other possible state of being. Choices must be made, patterns and possibilities will be destroyed, and in any case entropy will eventually catch up with us. Yet we wish to survive, thrive, and propagate, and we can best do so by encouraging general patterns of diversity which reflect those patterns which gave rise to our existence and certain levels of comfort, love, and peace of mind.
1. "Survival of the Fittest", while shown to be a sort of truism both in statistical terms and in random, chaotic terms (sometimes the apparently fittest do not survive while the "less fit" do because of individualized circumstances), the oversimplified notion of survival of the fittest has led to an overemphasis on competition between organisms or between human cultures
2. Human beings, or any pattern, have evolved in and are adapted to a diverse environment, containing a huge multiplicity of organismic and also "non-living" (the reason for the quotes will be become clear) patterns. That is to say we come from a complex world of many kinds of people and other living beings, all existing in a complex environment.
3. In terms of survival and propagation, it is all too often a huge mistake for humans, who choose their modes of existence, to try to minimize or eliminate, or to allow the minimization or elimination of other well-developed patterns of existence, such as other organisms (extinction), other "sorts" of people (discrimination, war, genocide), or beneficial states of being (clean air, clean water) in order to attempt to dominate a larger portion of the overall pattern of existence, since this alters the pattern which supports us in such a way as to tend to hasten our own extinction.
4. Rather, we can more gently nudge and nurture those modes of existence that enhance our well-being, which can be summed up in a word: "diversity". This has become a loaded term; it really just means multiplicity, a state of many. There are many things, such as those listed above (people, organisms, a clean environment), in the world that benefit us, yet we often refuse to recognize them when they seem to stand in the way of a short term goal, such as, say, industrial production.
5. Obviously, every pattern that evolves means that other contrary patterns do not exist at that moment, and other patterns will never exist. The essence of chaos theory is that every action everywhere changes history at least a little bit. Every state of being carries with it the negation of its opposite, which, in the overall scheme of things, means every other possible state of being. Choices must be made, patterns and possibilities will be destroyed, and in any case entropy will eventually catch up with us. Yet we wish to survive, thrive, and propagate, and we can best do so by encouraging general patterns of diversity which reflect those patterns which gave rise to our existence and certain levels of comfort, love, and peace of mind.
Friday, May 12, 2006
Lawlessness, Law, Lawlessness
So, with a bit of a pause in the middle, I am a newly minted attorney, at least in license.
In law school, which is now a long time ago although I recently passed the bar on the first try, I did come to appreciate that we live in a system of laws, that this protects us from the worst kind of anarchy. But, a little later, I met and came to appreciate anarchists and their philosophy. I still think we need some laws, but look forward to a day when we teach enlightenment such that very few laws will be needed, and even less enforcement. The laws that remain will be followed not because they are the law, but because people understand what makes them important, and would follow or even invent them of their own accord even if they were not formally recorded.
In law school, which is now a long time ago although I recently passed the bar on the first try, I did come to appreciate that we live in a system of laws, that this protects us from the worst kind of anarchy. But, a little later, I met and came to appreciate anarchists and their philosophy. I still think we need some laws, but look forward to a day when we teach enlightenment such that very few laws will be needed, and even less enforcement. The laws that remain will be followed not because they are the law, but because people understand what makes them important, and would follow or even invent them of their own accord even if they were not formally recorded.
Monday, April 24, 2006
A Favorite Recurrent Thought
Did you ever stop to think how much happens around the world, or even across the universe, during a single second when nothing much seems to change and maybe you're just spacing out (or contemplating some "deep thought")?
On Making Killing Unthinkable
No, it hasn't been a month and a half since my last shower. I've probably let some good blog entries go by without translating from brain to blog or any other recorded medium, which I regret...
A recent issue of Rolling Stone featured a piece on the making of soldiers, pointing that the human inhibition against killing is quite strong. And so the military goes to great lengths to control soldiers' very thought process and reduce the inhibition, while simultaneously depersonalizing the act of killing. The latter is accomplished for example by referring to "neutralizing targets" rather than "killing human beings", and by using technology to maximize the physical distance between killer and killed. Inhibitions are reduced by such activities as war games.
Introspectively and statistically (for although there is too much killing in the world, most people do not kill, and most who do do so rarely), it seems true that on the whole, human beings are loathe to kill. But the fear of death, and perhaps especially of murder, invests those who are willing to kill with a certain amount of power, whether it be a lone killer or a military force. Still, this power may be neutralizable in many people simply through the exercise of logic and self-examination.
Say that you are a young person thinking of joining the military. You probably have a variety of motives, some of which may be idealistic (i.e. to defend your country), others which may be in a sense "selfish" but which are certainly understandable (you need a job and a future, and the military promises good training and benefits). You probably do not want to kill anyone, certainly not for the money involved and certainly not unnecessarily. You know at some level killing (or dying) may nevertheless become an issue, but you believe that will only happen because it is necessary for the greater good, such as defense of country or perhaps order in the world. Note that this is a balancing equation; untimely death on either side is a bad thing, but the greater good may outweigh it.
But also note that military training and role playing is aimed at desensitizing you to the death side of the equation, and along with physical distance from the "target" human beings, that side has become minimized in your mind, so that someone else can command death and you will simply react. Life and death in which you directly participate become somebody else's call. Just like you, that someone else has also been desensitized by training, plus they gain additional distance by the fact that you are carrying out the killing for them. Everybody is minimizing death in their minds, as much as possible, and so that side of the equation is not given proper consideration, even though it is entirely obvious that it is happening.
But if you do not wish to live in a comic book reality, the truth remains the truth. When you fire a weapon and it squarely hits someone, the usual outcome is that that person's guts are ripped to shreds. People who are not killed are maimed, or lose family. If they are not of your nationality, that is only an accident of birth; their pain is the same as yours would be. Or you could be the victim as well. That is reality. I wish to inflict no guilt on those who have felt they were doing their duty in war. I am just saying if we are to be reasonable about trying to avoid unnecessary wars, we must face the reality of what war is.
War is a horrible phenomena for most people affected by it. I would also argue that violence is a very blunt instrument, and rarely the most effective means to accomplish anything. Either one of these reasons should be sufficient to say that if war and/or killing are ever necessary, they must be an absolute last resort.
A budding young soldier, thinking this over, may nevertheless choose to serve in the military, believing, for example, claims by the President that the current war is indeed a last resort, and that all other options have indeed been exhausted before the war was launched. It is natural for young and old alike to defer to higher authorites simply by virtue of their position (and, for the young, also by virtue of their age). Let older and more powerful people decide these things; after all, don't they know best?
But the first six years of the Presidency of George W. Bush should have made it quite clear by now that wealth and power, even the power of the most powerful man in the world, do not make for wisdom. In fact, lately it's beginning to look quite the opposite way. The word "cronyism" has recently become commonplace, but it's just another word for an old idea: you scratch the back of the most powerful man in the world, and he will scratch yours. The rest of the world be damned. Resources and fellow human beings are to be looted, pillaged and killed for the short term enrichment of a few.
We are at war for the wrong reasons, and we must face the fact that not only Americans are being killed. Americans are being made to kill, and Iraqis are killing each other as well as killing Americans. It is without any disrespect to those soldiers who believed or still believe they are doing the right to thing that we must face the fact that people, not "targets", are being killed and for causes that are entirely wrong, the cause of enriching and rewarding the President's cronies, the cause of controlling oil when we should be getting away from its use, and the cause of allowing the President to gain as absolute control of his own people -- whom he is supposed to be serving -- as is possible. War is killing; if there is ever a right time for war, it must be done with the consciousness that it is killing, the most awful thing that humans ever could have to do to each other, no matter how much one sanitizes the language. If we deny this, the equation goes out of balance, and the odds are that not only are we killing, we are killing wrongly and unnecessarily because we have shut out the truth.
I also happen to personally believe that if we face the truth, there is always another way, that Gandhi, Jesus, and Dr. Martin Luther King (who was influenced by Gandhi and who believed in Jesus) have lessons to teach us about the nature of power. Arguments can be made for the necessity of fighting of World War II; I would hope other ways could still be discovered, even in retrospect, to have averted that tragedy. But Iraq is most certainly a bad argument for war, for killing human beings.
A recent issue of Rolling Stone featured a piece on the making of soldiers, pointing that the human inhibition against killing is quite strong. And so the military goes to great lengths to control soldiers' very thought process and reduce the inhibition, while simultaneously depersonalizing the act of killing. The latter is accomplished for example by referring to "neutralizing targets" rather than "killing human beings", and by using technology to maximize the physical distance between killer and killed. Inhibitions are reduced by such activities as war games.
Introspectively and statistically (for although there is too much killing in the world, most people do not kill, and most who do do so rarely), it seems true that on the whole, human beings are loathe to kill. But the fear of death, and perhaps especially of murder, invests those who are willing to kill with a certain amount of power, whether it be a lone killer or a military force. Still, this power may be neutralizable in many people simply through the exercise of logic and self-examination.
Say that you are a young person thinking of joining the military. You probably have a variety of motives, some of which may be idealistic (i.e. to defend your country), others which may be in a sense "selfish" but which are certainly understandable (you need a job and a future, and the military promises good training and benefits). You probably do not want to kill anyone, certainly not for the money involved and certainly not unnecessarily. You know at some level killing (or dying) may nevertheless become an issue, but you believe that will only happen because it is necessary for the greater good, such as defense of country or perhaps order in the world. Note that this is a balancing equation; untimely death on either side is a bad thing, but the greater good may outweigh it.
But also note that military training and role playing is aimed at desensitizing you to the death side of the equation, and along with physical distance from the "target" human beings, that side has become minimized in your mind, so that someone else can command death and you will simply react. Life and death in which you directly participate become somebody else's call. Just like you, that someone else has also been desensitized by training, plus they gain additional distance by the fact that you are carrying out the killing for them. Everybody is minimizing death in their minds, as much as possible, and so that side of the equation is not given proper consideration, even though it is entirely obvious that it is happening.
But if you do not wish to live in a comic book reality, the truth remains the truth. When you fire a weapon and it squarely hits someone, the usual outcome is that that person's guts are ripped to shreds. People who are not killed are maimed, or lose family. If they are not of your nationality, that is only an accident of birth; their pain is the same as yours would be. Or you could be the victim as well. That is reality. I wish to inflict no guilt on those who have felt they were doing their duty in war. I am just saying if we are to be reasonable about trying to avoid unnecessary wars, we must face the reality of what war is.
War is a horrible phenomena for most people affected by it. I would also argue that violence is a very blunt instrument, and rarely the most effective means to accomplish anything. Either one of these reasons should be sufficient to say that if war and/or killing are ever necessary, they must be an absolute last resort.
A budding young soldier, thinking this over, may nevertheless choose to serve in the military, believing, for example, claims by the President that the current war is indeed a last resort, and that all other options have indeed been exhausted before the war was launched. It is natural for young and old alike to defer to higher authorites simply by virtue of their position (and, for the young, also by virtue of their age). Let older and more powerful people decide these things; after all, don't they know best?
But the first six years of the Presidency of George W. Bush should have made it quite clear by now that wealth and power, even the power of the most powerful man in the world, do not make for wisdom. In fact, lately it's beginning to look quite the opposite way. The word "cronyism" has recently become commonplace, but it's just another word for an old idea: you scratch the back of the most powerful man in the world, and he will scratch yours. The rest of the world be damned. Resources and fellow human beings are to be looted, pillaged and killed for the short term enrichment of a few.
We are at war for the wrong reasons, and we must face the fact that not only Americans are being killed. Americans are being made to kill, and Iraqis are killing each other as well as killing Americans. It is without any disrespect to those soldiers who believed or still believe they are doing the right to thing that we must face the fact that people, not "targets", are being killed and for causes that are entirely wrong, the cause of enriching and rewarding the President's cronies, the cause of controlling oil when we should be getting away from its use, and the cause of allowing the President to gain as absolute control of his own people -- whom he is supposed to be serving -- as is possible. War is killing; if there is ever a right time for war, it must be done with the consciousness that it is killing, the most awful thing that humans ever could have to do to each other, no matter how much one sanitizes the language. If we deny this, the equation goes out of balance, and the odds are that not only are we killing, we are killing wrongly and unnecessarily because we have shut out the truth.
I also happen to personally believe that if we face the truth, there is always another way, that Gandhi, Jesus, and Dr. Martin Luther King (who was influenced by Gandhi and who believed in Jesus) have lessons to teach us about the nature of power. Arguments can be made for the necessity of fighting of World War II; I would hope other ways could still be discovered, even in retrospect, to have averted that tragedy. But Iraq is most certainly a bad argument for war, for killing human beings.
Friday, March 10, 2006
More Notes from the Shower
Overall structure: theft of essential resources and freedoms under Orwellian pretenses of political and corporate benevolence.
Positive agenda: a world free from fear. Freedom from fear comes from a trust in the purity of one's environment and the (actual) benevolent intentions of one's fellow human beings. Freedom from does not come from the "protection" of bigger guns and restriction of other freedoms. The remarkable extent to which humans in fact are benevolent to each other proves this; we need to leverage this tendency, rather than sow the seeds of distrust and intimidation.
Goal along the way: the Million Gandhi March, to say that there is not just one leader of non-violence who can be shoved out of the way, but millions. Nevertheless, a more marketable name may be helpful, since relatively few people outside of India have a full appreciation of Gandhi's historical and spiritual importance.
Preliminary thoughts for the "Million Gandhi Manifesto":
Note to self: read the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
More soon, perhaps after my next shower. Got to run now!
Positive agenda: a world free from fear. Freedom from fear comes from a trust in the purity of one's environment and the (actual) benevolent intentions of one's fellow human beings. Freedom from does not come from the "protection" of bigger guns and restriction of other freedoms. The remarkable extent to which humans in fact are benevolent to each other proves this; we need to leverage this tendency, rather than sow the seeds of distrust and intimidation.
Goal along the way: the Million Gandhi March, to say that there is not just one leader of non-violence who can be shoved out of the way, but millions. Nevertheless, a more marketable name may be helpful, since relatively few people outside of India have a full appreciation of Gandhi's historical and spiritual importance.
Preliminary thoughts for the "Million Gandhi Manifesto":
No one rules the world. The enlightened person rules his or her self, and contributes to and protects the commons.
Non-violence is a near absolute; violence disturbs the order of things and contributes little.
There are no enemies, only unenlightened or angry friends.
All human beings deserve a safe, secure, and sufficiently prosperous place on this planet.
Note to self: read the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
More soon, perhaps after my next shower. Got to run now!
Saturday, March 04, 2006
Thoughts After a Shower
Probably half of this blog is written immediately after a shower, as are half of the songs I write, although I haven't done a lot of that for a year or two.
God as the big pattern of the fractal: I've mentioned before that the idea of the fractal leads me to see something bigger than us. If fractals are identical patterns within patterns (as you zoom in, you see the macro-pattern duplicated at the micro-level, again and again), and the universe actually has a fractal structure, then the existence of things like values and love would seem to indicate that this is a property of the universe, rather than just what some philosophers would call an "epiphenomena", an odd side effect of a dead universe, full of energy yet intrinsically lifeless. There is a book on my father's shelves, for example, called "Values in a Universe of Chance". I haven't actually read it, but the title illuminates the conundrum of the modern thinker who sees physics at the base of all existence.
A simplified fractal might be a circle that is filled with tiny circles that are filled with tinier circles. But then again, you could build much the same circle out of triangles, the favorite shape of virtual reality programmers. So is the fractal just a convenient way of dicing things up, creating beautiful poster, and even depicting reality -- but just a depiction? Or is it actually an expression of reality? Even when I see a little light, I like to ask the dark questions. But if the questions are not suppressed, each new light seems a little more real, a little more reassuring.
Incidentally, this is one reason why I don't like censorship, even when free speech hurts or seems to strike at the soul of all we believe in.
However, now I have to work on the question. I don't have an answer at the moment.
The Bar Exam: Completed the bar exam a week and a half ago. Reading outlines of American law gave me a new appreciation of the balance struck by our Constitution, legislation and jurisprudence over the years. Of course much that is evil or unfortunate in human beings has also expressed itself over the years. My sense is that, along with society in general, our progress in law peaked around the mid to late seventies, and started slowly downhill with Reagan, although I'd bring him back in a second to replace our beloved W.
Love is a tool which humans use to provive (survive and propogate) the human pattern, or the family pattern, or sometimes the cultural pattern, through cooperation and nurturing. Humans are separate patterns, but part of a bigger pattern. Groups are intermediary patterns, while the human race is the big pattern, although not the biggest. Hate is also a tool, which attempts to assist provival of oneself or an intermediate sized group by neutralizing or destroying a competing group. The great strength of love is that it is also a pattern in and of itself, which tends to provive when put into action. The great weakness of hate is that it too is a pattern in and of itself, which tends to provive when put into action. When love provives, solutions are found. When hate provives, people suffer and die; those who set it into action for their ends will find that it tends to then turn against them. If the so-called enemy and its friends and allies are not completely neutralized, then their hatred will surface against the instigators, and it will go on until there is nothing left. As Gandhi said, "an eye for an eye and the whole world goes blind". If somehow an "enemy" is completely vanquished, there will be no paradise for those who remain, because, having learned the power of hate, they will then turn on each other, competing as smaller and smaller groups until there is only one, alone (perhaps that is the point of the Highlander movie slogan, "There can be only one!"). And then, since we are not immortal like the Highlander, there will be none. Only love can intervene, which it is really up to all of us to do at our earliest, er, convenience.
Love and hate are patterns within our patterns of existence; we are capable of both. But the vision that hate is a shortcut is the most vicious of illusions. Not to wax religious per se, but it is a shortcut only to Hell.
Which brings me back to last Fall (no pun intended), when we proved, facetiously of course (well, sort of), that W. is the anti-Christ, despite his religious posturing. Not to introduce anymore hate into the equation, but just to bring some perspective on the gravity of what we are dealing with, even with just a trace of hyperbole and humor.
God as the big pattern of the fractal: I've mentioned before that the idea of the fractal leads me to see something bigger than us. If fractals are identical patterns within patterns (as you zoom in, you see the macro-pattern duplicated at the micro-level, again and again), and the universe actually has a fractal structure, then the existence of things like values and love would seem to indicate that this is a property of the universe, rather than just what some philosophers would call an "epiphenomena", an odd side effect of a dead universe, full of energy yet intrinsically lifeless. There is a book on my father's shelves, for example, called "Values in a Universe of Chance". I haven't actually read it, but the title illuminates the conundrum of the modern thinker who sees physics at the base of all existence.
A simplified fractal might be a circle that is filled with tiny circles that are filled with tinier circles. But then again, you could build much the same circle out of triangles, the favorite shape of virtual reality programmers. So is the fractal just a convenient way of dicing things up, creating beautiful poster, and even depicting reality -- but just a depiction? Or is it actually an expression of reality? Even when I see a little light, I like to ask the dark questions. But if the questions are not suppressed, each new light seems a little more real, a little more reassuring.
Incidentally, this is one reason why I don't like censorship, even when free speech hurts or seems to strike at the soul of all we believe in.
However, now I have to work on the question. I don't have an answer at the moment.
The Bar Exam: Completed the bar exam a week and a half ago. Reading outlines of American law gave me a new appreciation of the balance struck by our Constitution, legislation and jurisprudence over the years. Of course much that is evil or unfortunate in human beings has also expressed itself over the years. My sense is that, along with society in general, our progress in law peaked around the mid to late seventies, and started slowly downhill with Reagan, although I'd bring him back in a second to replace our beloved W.
Love is a tool which humans use to provive (survive and propogate) the human pattern, or the family pattern, or sometimes the cultural pattern, through cooperation and nurturing. Humans are separate patterns, but part of a bigger pattern. Groups are intermediary patterns, while the human race is the big pattern, although not the biggest. Hate is also a tool, which attempts to assist provival of oneself or an intermediate sized group by neutralizing or destroying a competing group. The great strength of love is that it is also a pattern in and of itself, which tends to provive when put into action. The great weakness of hate is that it too is a pattern in and of itself, which tends to provive when put into action. When love provives, solutions are found. When hate provives, people suffer and die; those who set it into action for their ends will find that it tends to then turn against them. If the so-called enemy and its friends and allies are not completely neutralized, then their hatred will surface against the instigators, and it will go on until there is nothing left. As Gandhi said, "an eye for an eye and the whole world goes blind". If somehow an "enemy" is completely vanquished, there will be no paradise for those who remain, because, having learned the power of hate, they will then turn on each other, competing as smaller and smaller groups until there is only one, alone (perhaps that is the point of the Highlander movie slogan, "There can be only one!"). And then, since we are not immortal like the Highlander, there will be none. Only love can intervene, which it is really up to all of us to do at our earliest, er, convenience.
Love and hate are patterns within our patterns of existence; we are capable of both. But the vision that hate is a shortcut is the most vicious of illusions. Not to wax religious per se, but it is a shortcut only to Hell.
Which brings me back to last Fall (no pun intended), when we proved, facetiously of course (well, sort of), that W. is the anti-Christ, despite his religious posturing. Not to introduce anymore hate into the equation, but just to bring some perspective on the gravity of what we are dealing with, even with just a trace of hyperbole and humor.
Friday, February 17, 2006
Stray Thoughts on Globalization
Hit a wall with studying for the "Bar". May not "pass on the first try", making this a "practice test", but planning on getting back to work shortly anyway. The process reaffirms that "the Law" as promulgated by governments and taught in "Law Schools" isn't exactly what I was meant to study, but very educational nevertheless. But one could never be "educated" by only studying this type of law in a vacuum.
OK, enough sarcasm. I'm tired and frustrated, although a little better rested for having acknowledged this state of affairs and taken a break.
The rest of this blog is just a notebook entry, a seed to be germinated later.
Human relations are, of course, a global pattern, part of the universal pattern. Nevertheless, over the aeons, many human cultures have managed to stay relatively separate. Travel, communications, wars and diplomacy all contributed to breaking down the separateness; to some degree such factors have homogenized us, to another extent they have pitted us against each other. Previous entries on the interactions of human patterns are relevant here. More recently, somebody or other (perhaps someone in particular, perhaps it was more of a gradual dawning) recognized this phenomenon, and decided to push it forward, leading to the term "globalization" to denote an actual program upon which it is suggested that humans should actually be embarking. Even in the most idealistic sense, there is a lot of hubris to this, but it doesn't necessarily mean that it is not correct at some level, i.e. all humans could probably stand to be somewhat idealistic towards each other, help each other out, cooperate in attaining mutual goals. However, what's actually happening, not surprisingly to anyone who's paying attention to everything else that's happening, is that the process has become another vehicle, perhaps the ultimate vehicle, for looting the existences of those with less power.
Shifting things to another level, I should perhaps have said "those with less power than they are aware of or in control of". Again, I point to the examples of Gandhi and Martin Luther King. However, the world doesn't need one more Gandhi or MLK. The world needs several billion of them. It is too easy for a violent cult, say some branch of the U.S. government, to scatter a cult of personality; just kill the leader, and the movement will never be the same, at least not for decades. Gandhi and MLK took too much upon themselves; the work they wanted to see done was too pressing on them to delegate too much, or to take the time to wait for their teachings to become fully formed and promulgated. The cult of personality was, unfortunately, a convenient tool, a shortcut that seemed necessary. They accomplished much, but then their work was largely cut short, because they were too important to the pattern of each of their respective movements. But these men did study deeply, and their ideas and examples are perhaps the best starting point that we have to explore the power of love to actually move mountains.
So, one level of the ongoing work of nonviolence is to initiate, for starters, a million people with the depth of understanding of Gandhi, plus a little bit. While we may be fond of the Matrix movies, we need to stop searching for "the One", and each become that person. A beginning is to realize that the power of love is ultimately the strongest, and that we all possess it. The power of violence has long dazzled our eyes, but it is a weaker, clumsy, and unfocussed power that has always done much more damage than it has good. Part of that damage is that whenever it does do any good, it dazzles our eyes even more, making it that much greater of a temptation to go our and do more damage, in the service of some smaller good. Those who followed Gandhi's example did more than anyone else to free their nations from colonialism, and those who followed MLK's example did more than anyone else change civil rights laws in the United States while leaving a lasting vision of how to gain equality, a fair balance of power, in a loving manner. Those are the visions that should dazzle our eyes. However, we should not simply act upon the impulse imparted by hypnotism. We should shake it off, consider what we have seen and what is to be learned, discuss it, teach others, deepen our understanding... The appropriate actions will follow. Yes, there is a hurry, but there is also great danger in too much haste, in not understanding what it is that we are doing.
To let a little air out of this balloon, allow me to quote a song I once wrote:
"Yeah baby, I believe in the 60's." Get down!
Back to "the law".
OK, enough sarcasm. I'm tired and frustrated, although a little better rested for having acknowledged this state of affairs and taken a break.
The rest of this blog is just a notebook entry, a seed to be germinated later.
Human relations are, of course, a global pattern, part of the universal pattern. Nevertheless, over the aeons, many human cultures have managed to stay relatively separate. Travel, communications, wars and diplomacy all contributed to breaking down the separateness; to some degree such factors have homogenized us, to another extent they have pitted us against each other. Previous entries on the interactions of human patterns are relevant here. More recently, somebody or other (perhaps someone in particular, perhaps it was more of a gradual dawning) recognized this phenomenon, and decided to push it forward, leading to the term "globalization" to denote an actual program upon which it is suggested that humans should actually be embarking. Even in the most idealistic sense, there is a lot of hubris to this, but it doesn't necessarily mean that it is not correct at some level, i.e. all humans could probably stand to be somewhat idealistic towards each other, help each other out, cooperate in attaining mutual goals. However, what's actually happening, not surprisingly to anyone who's paying attention to everything else that's happening, is that the process has become another vehicle, perhaps the ultimate vehicle, for looting the existences of those with less power.
Shifting things to another level, I should perhaps have said "those with less power than they are aware of or in control of". Again, I point to the examples of Gandhi and Martin Luther King. However, the world doesn't need one more Gandhi or MLK. The world needs several billion of them. It is too easy for a violent cult, say some branch of the U.S. government, to scatter a cult of personality; just kill the leader, and the movement will never be the same, at least not for decades. Gandhi and MLK took too much upon themselves; the work they wanted to see done was too pressing on them to delegate too much, or to take the time to wait for their teachings to become fully formed and promulgated. The cult of personality was, unfortunately, a convenient tool, a shortcut that seemed necessary. They accomplished much, but then their work was largely cut short, because they were too important to the pattern of each of their respective movements. But these men did study deeply, and their ideas and examples are perhaps the best starting point that we have to explore the power of love to actually move mountains.
So, one level of the ongoing work of nonviolence is to initiate, for starters, a million people with the depth of understanding of Gandhi, plus a little bit. While we may be fond of the Matrix movies, we need to stop searching for "the One", and each become that person. A beginning is to realize that the power of love is ultimately the strongest, and that we all possess it. The power of violence has long dazzled our eyes, but it is a weaker, clumsy, and unfocussed power that has always done much more damage than it has good. Part of that damage is that whenever it does do any good, it dazzles our eyes even more, making it that much greater of a temptation to go our and do more damage, in the service of some smaller good. Those who followed Gandhi's example did more than anyone else to free their nations from colonialism, and those who followed MLK's example did more than anyone else change civil rights laws in the United States while leaving a lasting vision of how to gain equality, a fair balance of power, in a loving manner. Those are the visions that should dazzle our eyes. However, we should not simply act upon the impulse imparted by hypnotism. We should shake it off, consider what we have seen and what is to be learned, discuss it, teach others, deepen our understanding... The appropriate actions will follow. Yes, there is a hurry, but there is also great danger in too much haste, in not understanding what it is that we are doing.
To let a little air out of this balloon, allow me to quote a song I once wrote:
"Yeah baby, I believe in the 60's." Get down!
Back to "the law".
Wednesday, February 01, 2006
Quickie Comments I've Posted to the BBC Today
Also, please see today's updates to "Gandhi's Experiment", directly below and originally published a few days ago.
On Bush's "Clean Energy" Comments in his State of the Union Speech:
Nearly any policy Bush puts forward benefits his mega-wealthy cronies and contributors first, and the rest of us not at all. If you don't believe it, you only need to look a little more closely. Bush's "clean energy" programs will be virtually unregulated, allowing "clean energy" to be produced in the cheapest, dirtiest ways possible, like burning huge amounts of coal without scrubbers as a means to produce "clean" hydrogen as fuel, or burying nuclear waste by a convenient earthquake fault at Yucca Mountain. And since when has nuclear energy been clean? Follow the money.
On the Danish cartoon, depicting the Islam's prophet Muhammad as a suicide bomber:
The newspaper may have been insensitive in publishing this cartoon. However, I don't think religions can or should enforce all of their proscriptions on everybody else. It's fine to be offended and say so. But let's not divide the world further with large scale, political repercussions. The good name of a prophet as great as Muhammad will survive the insult, which I think was really directed at those who misuse that name, and God will sort out the sinners in the long run.
On Bush's "Clean Energy" Comments in his State of the Union Speech:
Nearly any policy Bush puts forward benefits his mega-wealthy cronies and contributors first, and the rest of us not at all. If you don't believe it, you only need to look a little more closely. Bush's "clean energy" programs will be virtually unregulated, allowing "clean energy" to be produced in the cheapest, dirtiest ways possible, like burning huge amounts of coal without scrubbers as a means to produce "clean" hydrogen as fuel, or burying nuclear waste by a convenient earthquake fault at Yucca Mountain. And since when has nuclear energy been clean? Follow the money.
On the Danish cartoon, depicting the Islam's prophet Muhammad as a suicide bomber:
The newspaper may have been insensitive in publishing this cartoon. However, I don't think religions can or should enforce all of their proscriptions on everybody else. It's fine to be offended and say so. But let's not divide the world further with large scale, political repercussions. The good name of a prophet as great as Muhammad will survive the insult, which I think was really directed at those who misuse that name, and God will sort out the sinners in the long run.
Monday, January 30, 2006
Gandhi's Experiment (Updated 2/01)
Mohandas Gandhi played a pivotal role in freeing India from British colonial domination. His technique was revolutionary amongst revolutions. He eschewed all violence, but said that the power of love or "soul force" was more powerful and more effective. Then he set out to prove his point with regard to India's independence, with a campaign basically composed of positive propaganda (i.e. education as to his philosophy) and non-cooperation, peppered with organized acts of calculated defiance that were dramatized by the refusal of the participants to react violently, even when beaten or killed.
In terms of evolutionary pattern theory (a tautology: those patterns which are best able to survive and propogate (provive)... survive and propogate, although they also evolve in the process), Gandhi's approach was to introduce the virus of tolerance, a subpattern which is meant to allow patterns to coexist side by side. Recall that there are at least four ways in which patterns may interact affecting their provival: competitively (weakening or destroying each other to increase energy inputs), parasitically (one draws strength from the other, at the other's expense, or weakening of the inertia of the pattern), symbiotically/cooperatively (each draws strength from the other), or separately (side by side coexistence with little significant interaction). Most interactions among significantly interacting patterns employ a combination of approaches, weighting each differently and accomplishing each aspect in a variety of ways.
Tolerance, in Gandhi's sense, is one such technique, which takes very seriously the balancing of these interactions. It basically says, let us look carefully at our patterns. Historically, we have been afraid of each other, and when we have acted upon our fears, it has given us more cause for fear as we look back at our history. But really, our patterns are not different and need not be competitive or mutually destructive to provive. But we must alter our patterns only enough to realize this, and to mutually act upon that information.
Love is another such technique; it recognizes that there is strength and security in not just learning to live side by side, separately, but in strengthening each other and making each other more secure: patterns reinforcing each other. This requires mutuality and a buildup of trust in the long run for effective provival, because otherwise fear and betrayal can also result in patterns of culture going at it with each other once again.
Active love (aka satyagraha, or soul force) takes this one step further. It demands respect at the least, and strives for actual cooperation and mutual love. There is self-love as well as love for the other, a security that the instinctive weapon of violence is not really needed, because the tools of love are available in the here and now.
Non-cooperation is another tool of satyagraha. Think about it. No tyranny has any more power than its ability to command at least the actions of its subjects. If the vast majority of the people refuse to cooperate in tyranny, the tyrant is helpless. Perhaps part of the tyrant's power comes from commanding many soldiers, whom he can pay from some vast resource of wealth. Still, if a brave populace is willing to face death rather than follow the dictates of a pointed gun, this power will self-destruct, just as surely as if the world's last remaining superpower stepped in with all of its military might, probably much more so. For the threats of the tyrant, even if carried out, are futile.
So I imagine the message of Gandhi's famous Salt March thusly: "We will show you how we demand respect and offer our love. We will break your unjust law by making our own salt from the sea in defiance of the British monopoly. You cannot disrespect our right to do so, for we will not cooperate in your disrespectful restrictions of our rights. You can beat us, but we will not hit you back, because you are human, and we love all of humanity. But you're beating us will humiliate you in front of the world while also teaching you that it is a waste of your time and energy to try to hold us subject to your will."
This is a pattern that can survive the world, and spread itself, without altering the positive patterns/values that are most fundamental to our existences. But it cannot do so if it emanates primarily from a single, charismatic individual, who can be killed, as were Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr., and will surely die one day in any case. It must be learned, pondered, practiced, and incorporated into the hearts of, if not all of us, as many of us as possible, and certainly not by force, but by the sincere reaching out and internal struggle of the individual inspired by teaching and debate that has the ring of truth about it. If one Martin Luther King can do so much to bring about civil rights reform, and one Gandhi can do so much to free a nation, think a few million Gandhis and Kings could do.
Satyagraha,
The Raving Moderate
To the memory of Coretta Scott King.
In terms of evolutionary pattern theory (a tautology: those patterns which are best able to survive and propogate (provive)... survive and propogate, although they also evolve in the process), Gandhi's approach was to introduce the virus of tolerance, a subpattern which is meant to allow patterns to coexist side by side. Recall that there are at least four ways in which patterns may interact affecting their provival: competitively (weakening or destroying each other to increase energy inputs), parasitically (one draws strength from the other, at the other's expense, or weakening of the inertia of the pattern), symbiotically/cooperatively (each draws strength from the other), or separately (side by side coexistence with little significant interaction). Most interactions among significantly interacting patterns employ a combination of approaches, weighting each differently and accomplishing each aspect in a variety of ways.
Tolerance, in Gandhi's sense, is one such technique, which takes very seriously the balancing of these interactions. It basically says, let us look carefully at our patterns. Historically, we have been afraid of each other, and when we have acted upon our fears, it has given us more cause for fear as we look back at our history. But really, our patterns are not different and need not be competitive or mutually destructive to provive. But we must alter our patterns only enough to realize this, and to mutually act upon that information.
Love is another such technique; it recognizes that there is strength and security in not just learning to live side by side, separately, but in strengthening each other and making each other more secure: patterns reinforcing each other. This requires mutuality and a buildup of trust in the long run for effective provival, because otherwise fear and betrayal can also result in patterns of culture going at it with each other once again.
Active love (aka satyagraha, or soul force) takes this one step further. It demands respect at the least, and strives for actual cooperation and mutual love. There is self-love as well as love for the other, a security that the instinctive weapon of violence is not really needed, because the tools of love are available in the here and now.
Non-cooperation is another tool of satyagraha. Think about it. No tyranny has any more power than its ability to command at least the actions of its subjects. If the vast majority of the people refuse to cooperate in tyranny, the tyrant is helpless. Perhaps part of the tyrant's power comes from commanding many soldiers, whom he can pay from some vast resource of wealth. Still, if a brave populace is willing to face death rather than follow the dictates of a pointed gun, this power will self-destruct, just as surely as if the world's last remaining superpower stepped in with all of its military might, probably much more so. For the threats of the tyrant, even if carried out, are futile.
So I imagine the message of Gandhi's famous Salt March thusly: "We will show you how we demand respect and offer our love. We will break your unjust law by making our own salt from the sea in defiance of the British monopoly. You cannot disrespect our right to do so, for we will not cooperate in your disrespectful restrictions of our rights. You can beat us, but we will not hit you back, because you are human, and we love all of humanity. But you're beating us will humiliate you in front of the world while also teaching you that it is a waste of your time and energy to try to hold us subject to your will."
This is a pattern that can survive the world, and spread itself, without altering the positive patterns/values that are most fundamental to our existences. But it cannot do so if it emanates primarily from a single, charismatic individual, who can be killed, as were Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr., and will surely die one day in any case. It must be learned, pondered, practiced, and incorporated into the hearts of, if not all of us, as many of us as possible, and certainly not by force, but by the sincere reaching out and internal struggle of the individual inspired by teaching and debate that has the ring of truth about it. If one Martin Luther King can do so much to bring about civil rights reform, and one Gandhi can do so much to free a nation, think a few million Gandhis and Kings could do.
Satyagraha,
The Raving Moderate
To the memory of Coretta Scott King.
Friday, January 27, 2006
Alito and the Presidential Signing Statement,
Sent this email to some Congresspeople through Working Assets:
The "Presidential Signing Statement", which Alito apparently recommended, Reagan first seized upon, and Bush uses with some abandon, is an indication of where Alito's nomination is coming from and how he will behave if allowed to sit on the Supreme Court. The Executive is not supposed to replace the Legislature anymore than the Judiciary is, yet this is what Bush tries to do with these statements: sign into law a modified version of Congress' intent. These statements should have no binding authority; they have perhaps been tolerated because they were just a footnote, an expression of Presidential vanity of little consequence. Bush doesn't operate that way; he tries to monopolize power to the greatest degree possible. And Alito will back him up on this when Bush actually tries to hide behind his own interpretations, in the form of signing statements, of legislation that would otherwise curb his authority, like the ban on torture.
Please support John Kerry's filibuster of this nomination. When you put the nomination together with things like outsourced, fraudulent elections and going to war on false pretexts that lead to the multi-billion dollar profit of crony corporations, it is clearly a step on the road away from democracy and towards dictatorship. Extraordinary circumstances indeed.
Click here for an NPR broadcast on the subject. of Presidential signing statements. A somewhat more probing looking is provided in this article by John Dean. My suspicion is that the signing statement is extra-constitutional, and that it's legal effect should be nil, if challenged in a responsible Supreme Court. But an irresponsible Supreme Court could allow the President to usurp legislative responsibilities, essentially giving him a line item veto, which already has been ruled unconstitutional: the President may sign or reject the bill given to him, not write his own version of it, as far as I can tell so far. However, I have believed all along that it is Bush' desire to erode the separation of powers. One way to do that is to place his "yes" men (and women) on the Supreme Court. Another is to get those members of the Supreme Court to vote him legislative powers, gradually moving the Presidency toward the vision of a "Unitary President", who ultimately becomes, to quote one word from a supposed wisecrack of Bush's, a "dictator". So, if the so-called "signing statement" is ever challenged, Alito may be just the person that Bush needs to tip the court to grant it the power to override Congressional authority.
The "Presidential Signing Statement", which Alito apparently recommended, Reagan first seized upon, and Bush uses with some abandon, is an indication of where Alito's nomination is coming from and how he will behave if allowed to sit on the Supreme Court. The Executive is not supposed to replace the Legislature anymore than the Judiciary is, yet this is what Bush tries to do with these statements: sign into law a modified version of Congress' intent. These statements should have no binding authority; they have perhaps been tolerated because they were just a footnote, an expression of Presidential vanity of little consequence. Bush doesn't operate that way; he tries to monopolize power to the greatest degree possible. And Alito will back him up on this when Bush actually tries to hide behind his own interpretations, in the form of signing statements, of legislation that would otherwise curb his authority, like the ban on torture.
Please support John Kerry's filibuster of this nomination. When you put the nomination together with things like outsourced, fraudulent elections and going to war on false pretexts that lead to the multi-billion dollar profit of crony corporations, it is clearly a step on the road away from democracy and towards dictatorship. Extraordinary circumstances indeed.
Click here for an NPR broadcast on the subject. of Presidential signing statements. A somewhat more probing looking is provided in this article by John Dean. My suspicion is that the signing statement is extra-constitutional, and that it's legal effect should be nil, if challenged in a responsible Supreme Court. But an irresponsible Supreme Court could allow the President to usurp legislative responsibilities, essentially giving him a line item veto, which already has been ruled unconstitutional: the President may sign or reject the bill given to him, not write his own version of it, as far as I can tell so far. However, I have believed all along that it is Bush' desire to erode the separation of powers. One way to do that is to place his "yes" men (and women) on the Supreme Court. Another is to get those members of the Supreme Court to vote him legislative powers, gradually moving the Presidency toward the vision of a "Unitary President", who ultimately becomes, to quote one word from a supposed wisecrack of Bush's, a "dictator". So, if the so-called "signing statement" is ever challenged, Alito may be just the person that Bush needs to tip the court to grant it the power to override Congressional authority.
Sunday, January 08, 2006
Censorship on China's Internet
Nice article in the BBC here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/click_online/4587622.stm
They've even kindly thrown in some URLs to what they call "SOME PUBLIC WEB-BASED CIRCUMVENTION SERVICES" for surfing without being identified. It's too bad some people are forced to hide in order to explore the universe of ideas, but let me reprint those services here (I have not tried them so I can't vouch):
www.peacefire.org
www.anonymizer.com
www.unipeak.com
www.anonymouse.org
www.proxyweb.net
www.guardster.com
www.webwarper.net
www.the-cloak.com
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/click_online/4587622.stm
They've even kindly thrown in some URLs to what they call "SOME PUBLIC WEB-BASED CIRCUMVENTION SERVICES" for surfing without being identified. It's too bad some people are forced to hide in order to explore the universe of ideas, but let me reprint those services here (I have not tried them so I can't vouch):
www.peacefire.org
www.anonymizer.com
www.unipeak.com
www.anonymouse.org
www.proxyweb.net
www.guardster.com
www.webwarper.net
www.the-cloak.com
Friday, January 06, 2006
Review and Discuss
My posts will be infrequent for the next couple of months, since I'm supposed to be studying for the bar exam. Very difficult to concentrate on though; while the law as it relates to human reality is a fascinating subject, I'm still too busy trying to understand human reality on more of a meta-level. Hence the theory of patterns. By the way, it only just crossed my mind that there may be (and a quick Google confirms it) an existing "Pattern Theory" which is under academic discussion. I suspect my "pattern theory" has something to do with, but mine is more of an evolution from studying evolution at the grade school level, and from considering problems of social disruptions at the political level in college.
Let's review. Pattern theory basically restates the primary theory of evolution as a tautology: those patterns of existence which tend to survive and propagate... tend to survive and propagate. Duh. If there are slight changes to the pattern which further enhance survival and propagation, then, duh, that pattern's survival and propagation are further enhanced. And so existence evolves. For our purposes here, you are nevertheless welcome to debate whether humans come from apes. The specific outcome is not a tautology, at least not without additional evidence, only the general rule. In fact the general rule in no way precludes a divine hand helping out in the "evolution" of things or even more or less creating people out of whole cloth or, in Eve's case, spare ribs (this pun is from Richard Armour's cute book of historical satire, "It All Started With Columbus").
Since it is based on a tautology, pattern theory should not be considered earth-shattering in and of itself. What it does do, is provide an interesting lens to look through in considering existence and other theories of existence. Take for example economics. Economics may be seen as patterns of behavior in which individual and groups of humans (individuals as patterns within patterns of groups) attempt to ensure their own survival, their own ability to thrive, and to propagate, both in the forms of children who are then to be successfully raised, and in the forms of groups similar to the one(s) the individuals currently belong to. Economic patterns may take such forms as cooperation, competition, or exploitation among individuals and groups, all of whom are struggling to survive and propagate their patterns of existence, including their genome, lifestyles, beliefs, ways of thinking etc. They... we... act this way not necessarily because of some higher calling (we may get to that question later), but simply because patterns that act in the interests of survival and propagation are the tautological outcome of evolution in an existence where "existence", "continued existence" and "patterns" can be descriptive terms.
Pattern theory can also be applied to questions of war and peace, which I have indirectly discussed previously. The application is actually very similar to the economic one; people as patterns trying to provive (survive and propagate) in the presence of conflicting people (patterns) may try to terminate those patterns, cause them to become cooperative (harmonious) patterns, or exterminate the conflicting patterns altogether.
Still, evolution is not complete, and our mechanisms of provival are still imperfect. So there is much to discuss.
Let's review. Pattern theory basically restates the primary theory of evolution as a tautology: those patterns of existence which tend to survive and propagate... tend to survive and propagate. Duh. If there are slight changes to the pattern which further enhance survival and propagation, then, duh, that pattern's survival and propagation are further enhanced. And so existence evolves. For our purposes here, you are nevertheless welcome to debate whether humans come from apes. The specific outcome is not a tautology, at least not without additional evidence, only the general rule. In fact the general rule in no way precludes a divine hand helping out in the "evolution" of things or even more or less creating people out of whole cloth or, in Eve's case, spare ribs (this pun is from Richard Armour's cute book of historical satire, "It All Started With Columbus").
Since it is based on a tautology, pattern theory should not be considered earth-shattering in and of itself. What it does do, is provide an interesting lens to look through in considering existence and other theories of existence. Take for example economics. Economics may be seen as patterns of behavior in which individual and groups of humans (individuals as patterns within patterns of groups) attempt to ensure their own survival, their own ability to thrive, and to propagate, both in the forms of children who are then to be successfully raised, and in the forms of groups similar to the one(s) the individuals currently belong to. Economic patterns may take such forms as cooperation, competition, or exploitation among individuals and groups, all of whom are struggling to survive and propagate their patterns of existence, including their genome, lifestyles, beliefs, ways of thinking etc. They... we... act this way not necessarily because of some higher calling (we may get to that question later), but simply because patterns that act in the interests of survival and propagation are the tautological outcome of evolution in an existence where "existence", "continued existence" and "patterns" can be descriptive terms.
Pattern theory can also be applied to questions of war and peace, which I have indirectly discussed previously. The application is actually very similar to the economic one; people as patterns trying to provive (survive and propagate) in the presence of conflicting people (patterns) may try to terminate those patterns, cause them to become cooperative (harmonious) patterns, or exterminate the conflicting patterns altogether.
Still, evolution is not complete, and our mechanisms of provival are still imperfect. So there is much to discuss.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)