I'm not even sure where to start with all of this, especially as my mind continues to be awash in both random thoughts having to do with nothing in particular (by far the majority of my daily musings) and a nascent sense of impending doom...er, I mean monumental ginormous change to my life and everything that has become "routine" over the course of the past 3 or so years.
The first point that must be addressed (and maybe the only one that I'll actually get through today) is that I am a completely different person than I was even a year ago. It's at once both shocking and pleasantly surprising to realize that I'm becoming exactly who I was meant to be, that all of those struggles and existential angst of being a 21 year old wunderkind with a college degree and little else to show for life have led me to exactly where I was heading anyway. (I won't say that those struggles were all for naught, because they undoubtedly contributed to my searching for some other mode of existence, but they were indeed not nearly as apparently fatal as I then thought they would be.)
Maybe the most surprising thing for me and for those few whom I let into my private world is that that private world is no longer so rich and exclusively inviting. What I mean by this is that I do not really deal in abstraction and flights of the imagination as much anymore. Sometimes I miss that part of who I was, which leads me to attempt to recreate that state of mind -- that mode of thinking -- but it is always fruitless. I have become uber practical, and in all honesty probably no longer as seemingly smart, interesting or mysterious (but probably, honestly, more intense...although I'm working on restraining that). Hence my decision to pursue an M.P.P. over an MA or Ph.D. because it seems more...well, practical, which, again, jives with how I now think best. On top of that, I quite frankly have little patience for fluff and bullshit now. I mean, I still enjoy theoretical wanderings and mystical musings, but at some point there just to be a point...and sooner rather than later.
The other thing that stands out to me is that I am surprisingly quite comfortable talking to other people, including strangers and women. A large part of this development surely stems from working as a server for almost 3 years now and being forced out of my own head/shell and thrown into constant interaction with all sorts of people, new people, complete strangers. Sometimes I think I still consider interaction with some people to be a complete waste of my time (trust me, I know that I project this...again, I'm working on it) but not nearly as bad as I used to. Do I necessarily get my rocks off with the thought of meeting new people? Hmm...not particularly, but it can and often is interesting...if not fun.
I'm still a work in progress and always will be, but I'm finding contentment in my own skin. I no longer have this massive angst about who I am or where my life is going. I'm learning to love the questions and stop obsessing about the answers...that may never come or come when least expected. Life is, well, good and fun and interesting. Gone is the feeling of inadequacy with myself, my life or my anticipated future...I'm excited about today and looking forward to tomorrow. For now that will suffice.
Monday, May 21, 2012
Tuesday, June 14, 2011
A (now old) new idea for a book
The other day, when I was in Museum of American History, I had a shocking moment of realization as I was viewing some of the new developments in robotics: humans are becoming automatons. In general, we'd rather become machines than think for ourselves. In a similar vein, the latest issue of Alternative Press magazine has AFI on the cover along with a quote from Davey: “Culture is at a crisis – look at what passes for entertainment.”
So I have a new conception for a book. I guess it is sort of in the same dystopian genre as Brave New World and 1984, but it will also be different. The focus will be more philosophical and psychological – especially psychological. A conception of man's future where everything is done for him, where thought has been completely removed from life. Books are non-existent and the internet has become mearly another source of entertainment. (David Foster Wallace's Infinite Jest is also influential in this regard.) Perhaps, I should draw in a Spinoza-esque character, someone who decides to live a life of the mind, as the liberator or the harbringer of a newly-liberated humanity. I like this plot-line, this is what I've been looking for: something critical of society's current trajectory, but also positive in it's outlook. The appeal is not universal though, but distinctly American – at least initially, perhaps there should be a follow up book dealing with enlightened humanity and world unity. Above all, I do not want it to become a text like 1984, that becomes a tool against the very thing that it is advocating on behalf of.
Heavy emphasis on the loss of the sense of self, for that is the modern American dilemma. Incorporate social networking, email, blogs, twitter, etc. (Video games and mindless television also lead to this.) Hyper-connectivity that leads to a loss of self. Hesse says in Demian that man will always try to avoid self-discovery and modern culture is readily facilitating that flight. Bly points out, in Iron John, that there is a rapid increase in “soft men,” but I see the real problem as a decrease in people's firm convictions of who exactly they are.
Is it possible for humanity to be individuals and have a global community simultaneously? An interesting point to be explored. Draw on Marx, Zizek, and other cultural critics. Above all, demonstrate where conformity leads to – especially the brand of conformity that exists today that likes to broadcast itself as stressing individualism (reminds me of the south park episode about the goth kids...). Let's run with this, start doing the research now. Identity theory, such as social constructivism and symbolic interactionism will also be a good tool.
Explore a prologue storyline about a codependent relationship with an alcoholic, for nothing exemplifies a loss of a sense of self quite like codependency.
Simultaneously incorporate the Buddhist concept that we are all different from moment to moment – discounting the Lockean theory that Self is a result of consciousness of past and present. Locke's concept doesn't quite capture the concept of Self in the technological age.
Also, incorporate surreptitious criticisms of Christianity, Islam, etc. for they also contribute to the loss of self – Christianity especially, because, again, the primary focus here is America. Christianity would have the whole world convert if it had it's way, making everyone fit a pre-defined conception of good and evil. Yeah, Christianity has definitely become part of the problem. Also, the Bible should be held up for special criticism – just don't refer to it as the Bible, but make it abundantly clear that that is indeed what you are talking about.
The loss of the sense of self is the worst thing that can happen to a person, yet it is the most common thing on the planet and the technological age is only serving to further hamper people's abilities to discover who they are beyond some virtual representation. (Here I'm reminded of the Matrix.)
Leibniz conceived of philosophy reaching a point where it could all just be turned over to a computer! (see The Courtier and the Heretic, pg. 79) The Matrix indeed!
Maybe a whole underground group of free thinkers, even Free Masons (brilliant), could be the saving grace of the human automatons....
Perhaps it's not a loss of the sense of self but a loss of opportunity for genuine self-discovery. There never really has been a widespread phenomenon of a population that is all completely self-aware. Also the possiblity that Self was externally given. Maybe we're at a point of potential for either complete human automation or complete freedom, with the internet as the facilitator of either.
What results from this loss of Self is an exponential increase in herd mentality and identification with a certain group, which leads to a vilification of the Other. This also explains the mass paranoia that is taking hold, especially towards those who, God forbid, are willing to try and change the established order by going beyond – by asking people to look outside of their groups. Self-exploration and -discovery are thus not intended to be undertakings for ends in and of themselves but rather as means to identify with the whole of humanity. As Einstein said, that which we condemn in others is what we fear in ourselves. Maybe what is then is an expansion of Self to a limited degree – again, modern technology facilitates this – but it is precisely because it is limited expansion that it is debilitating. Subsuming one's Self to a specific group is, in a way, an expansion of Self but also a limitation of Self-knowledge. It leads to an identification only with those groups with which we have multiple similarities, thus making it easier to shun the Other. And the reason is because we no longer have to interact with those people with whom we feel we have nothing in common, which limits our ability to determine whether or not, at some more fundamental level, we really do have things in common. As Hesse says, a man will always run from his Self – because to investigate it would mean exposing those less than desirable aspects. So we instead choose to deny those repulsive aspects, refusing to recognize them as less than ourselves, thus when we see others who exhibit similarities to the repulsive side of ourselves the vitriol with which we react is drastically increased. Jung delved into this with his concept of the shadow and the need to integrate and accept the shadow in order to overcome it. Racism, classism, zealotry in political and/or religious ideology, sexism, homophobia are all manifestations of this repression of the shadow and willful affiliation only with those groups that we choose. Technology represents a way to interact with the whole of humanity, to expand the horizons of our humaneness, but it also, and this has been the case thus far, represents an ability to harden against such expansion. We have lost track of what it means to belong to the community of mankind. It would not be right to call the resulting ideologies greedy, hateful, etc. in an individual sense, because assuredly these people (Glenn Beck is a prime example) are altruistic, but the scale and scope of that altruism are limited to a preselected and concretely defined group. Thus it is possible, and indeed desirable, for Self-discovery and a sense of individualism in order to facilitate a better connection with the whole of which we are inevitably a part. It's far overdue that we enter an age in which man ceases to fight against things and instead fight for ideals – ideals that, in all likelihood, probably have similarities across groups that are seemingly completely disparate.
Christianity came of age at a time of massive crackdown by the Roman emperors and now Atheism is coming of age in a world of dogmatic backlash – is it then any surprise that these two came to represent those things which preceded them? They are, after all, products of the environments of their germination. The John Birch Society's eventual resemblance to Communist cells and the KKK's similarities to Catholicism are also examples of what the fight against something instead of for something creates. It is not inappropriate to explore and disprove/discredit an established system of thought, but that is the means not the end of establishing a new order. In other words, discrediting cannot become dogmatism, it's about example not preaching and didactism.
This technological notion also creates a mindless population (again, refer to the above discussion of automatons).
If God is love and man is made in God's image, what then is man but LOVE? To say that man is, by nature, sinful is to insult the nature of God as well.
The other thing that this instantaneous e-communication produces is a culture of massive boredom. Instead of spending time alone and pursuing things such as intellectual advancement, people spend their time on various forms of e-chat. When someone is not present to communicate with people are left feeling desolate and bored – an obsession with instant gratification. It also retards real-life social interaction – not to mention the presence of text speak in school papers.
This inability to confront Self, indeed the unceasing flight from Self, is also facilitated in modern academic institutions – those hallowed beacons of liberal thought. For is original thought by students really encouraged? Absolutely not, in fact, it is one of the most frowned upon things in academia – labeled as “plagiarism.” Isn't it possible to quote Nietzsche or paraphrase Jung and to KNOW it – or the more important essence of what the author was saying – to feel it, to understand it without benefit of some stupid cited source? We're absconding thought!!! At all corners we've erected buttresses and fortress walls to protect (enclose) our minds from thought! If we follow the historical progression of this decline of actual thought, can we come up with predictions for what comes next? Was Huxley right, are we headed for a Brave New World? Did someone predict the rise of facebook and all the other bullshit on the internet? Certainly some self-aware, cultural critic, possibly neo-luddite had to be aware that we were heading towards less and less thought. In fact, I think you can see it reflected in modern cinema – Bruce Willis' new film Surrogates (I think) is a reflection of what happens to a world controlled by automatons that are left on “auto pilot.”
Two other ideas floating around:
1 - A new rendition of On the Road. A search for the soul of America, inspired by Neil Gaiman's factual statement in American Gods: “America is the only country in the world that doesn't know who she is.” A road trip across America to find out who she is today, what her components are. To find common ground apart from all this partisan political bullshit...if it still exists. Also an exhortation to return to the time before consumerism, conceit and ostentatiousness that is modern, post-war America.
2 – The New Epistles of Paul. A series of suicide notes by several people named Paul, each at different stages of their lives. Each letter will be a critique of modernity and a exude a sense of alienation from a rapidly devolving society.
So I have a new conception for a book. I guess it is sort of in the same dystopian genre as Brave New World and 1984, but it will also be different. The focus will be more philosophical and psychological – especially psychological. A conception of man's future where everything is done for him, where thought has been completely removed from life. Books are non-existent and the internet has become mearly another source of entertainment. (David Foster Wallace's Infinite Jest is also influential in this regard.) Perhaps, I should draw in a Spinoza-esque character, someone who decides to live a life of the mind, as the liberator or the harbringer of a newly-liberated humanity. I like this plot-line, this is what I've been looking for: something critical of society's current trajectory, but also positive in it's outlook. The appeal is not universal though, but distinctly American – at least initially, perhaps there should be a follow up book dealing with enlightened humanity and world unity. Above all, I do not want it to become a text like 1984, that becomes a tool against the very thing that it is advocating on behalf of.
Heavy emphasis on the loss of the sense of self, for that is the modern American dilemma. Incorporate social networking, email, blogs, twitter, etc. (Video games and mindless television also lead to this.) Hyper-connectivity that leads to a loss of self. Hesse says in Demian that man will always try to avoid self-discovery and modern culture is readily facilitating that flight. Bly points out, in Iron John, that there is a rapid increase in “soft men,” but I see the real problem as a decrease in people's firm convictions of who exactly they are.
Is it possible for humanity to be individuals and have a global community simultaneously? An interesting point to be explored. Draw on Marx, Zizek, and other cultural critics. Above all, demonstrate where conformity leads to – especially the brand of conformity that exists today that likes to broadcast itself as stressing individualism (reminds me of the south park episode about the goth kids...). Let's run with this, start doing the research now. Identity theory, such as social constructivism and symbolic interactionism will also be a good tool.
Explore a prologue storyline about a codependent relationship with an alcoholic, for nothing exemplifies a loss of a sense of self quite like codependency.
Simultaneously incorporate the Buddhist concept that we are all different from moment to moment – discounting the Lockean theory that Self is a result of consciousness of past and present. Locke's concept doesn't quite capture the concept of Self in the technological age.
Also, incorporate surreptitious criticisms of Christianity, Islam, etc. for they also contribute to the loss of self – Christianity especially, because, again, the primary focus here is America. Christianity would have the whole world convert if it had it's way, making everyone fit a pre-defined conception of good and evil. Yeah, Christianity has definitely become part of the problem. Also, the Bible should be held up for special criticism – just don't refer to it as the Bible, but make it abundantly clear that that is indeed what you are talking about.
The loss of the sense of self is the worst thing that can happen to a person, yet it is the most common thing on the planet and the technological age is only serving to further hamper people's abilities to discover who they are beyond some virtual representation. (Here I'm reminded of the Matrix.)
Leibniz conceived of philosophy reaching a point where it could all just be turned over to a computer! (see The Courtier and the Heretic, pg. 79) The Matrix indeed!
Maybe a whole underground group of free thinkers, even Free Masons (brilliant), could be the saving grace of the human automatons....
Perhaps it's not a loss of the sense of self but a loss of opportunity for genuine self-discovery. There never really has been a widespread phenomenon of a population that is all completely self-aware. Also the possiblity that Self was externally given. Maybe we're at a point of potential for either complete human automation or complete freedom, with the internet as the facilitator of either.
What results from this loss of Self is an exponential increase in herd mentality and identification with a certain group, which leads to a vilification of the Other. This also explains the mass paranoia that is taking hold, especially towards those who, God forbid, are willing to try and change the established order by going beyond – by asking people to look outside of their groups. Self-exploration and -discovery are thus not intended to be undertakings for ends in and of themselves but rather as means to identify with the whole of humanity. As Einstein said, that which we condemn in others is what we fear in ourselves. Maybe what is then is an expansion of Self to a limited degree – again, modern technology facilitates this – but it is precisely because it is limited expansion that it is debilitating. Subsuming one's Self to a specific group is, in a way, an expansion of Self but also a limitation of Self-knowledge. It leads to an identification only with those groups with which we have multiple similarities, thus making it easier to shun the Other. And the reason is because we no longer have to interact with those people with whom we feel we have nothing in common, which limits our ability to determine whether or not, at some more fundamental level, we really do have things in common. As Hesse says, a man will always run from his Self – because to investigate it would mean exposing those less than desirable aspects. So we instead choose to deny those repulsive aspects, refusing to recognize them as less than ourselves, thus when we see others who exhibit similarities to the repulsive side of ourselves the vitriol with which we react is drastically increased. Jung delved into this with his concept of the shadow and the need to integrate and accept the shadow in order to overcome it. Racism, classism, zealotry in political and/or religious ideology, sexism, homophobia are all manifestations of this repression of the shadow and willful affiliation only with those groups that we choose. Technology represents a way to interact with the whole of humanity, to expand the horizons of our humaneness, but it also, and this has been the case thus far, represents an ability to harden against such expansion. We have lost track of what it means to belong to the community of mankind. It would not be right to call the resulting ideologies greedy, hateful, etc. in an individual sense, because assuredly these people (Glenn Beck is a prime example) are altruistic, but the scale and scope of that altruism are limited to a preselected and concretely defined group. Thus it is possible, and indeed desirable, for Self-discovery and a sense of individualism in order to facilitate a better connection with the whole of which we are inevitably a part. It's far overdue that we enter an age in which man ceases to fight against things and instead fight for ideals – ideals that, in all likelihood, probably have similarities across groups that are seemingly completely disparate.
Christianity came of age at a time of massive crackdown by the Roman emperors and now Atheism is coming of age in a world of dogmatic backlash – is it then any surprise that these two came to represent those things which preceded them? They are, after all, products of the environments of their germination. The John Birch Society's eventual resemblance to Communist cells and the KKK's similarities to Catholicism are also examples of what the fight against something instead of for something creates. It is not inappropriate to explore and disprove/discredit an established system of thought, but that is the means not the end of establishing a new order. In other words, discrediting cannot become dogmatism, it's about example not preaching and didactism.
This technological notion also creates a mindless population (again, refer to the above discussion of automatons).
If God is love and man is made in God's image, what then is man but LOVE? To say that man is, by nature, sinful is to insult the nature of God as well.
The other thing that this instantaneous e-communication produces is a culture of massive boredom. Instead of spending time alone and pursuing things such as intellectual advancement, people spend their time on various forms of e-chat. When someone is not present to communicate with people are left feeling desolate and bored – an obsession with instant gratification. It also retards real-life social interaction – not to mention the presence of text speak in school papers.
This inability to confront Self, indeed the unceasing flight from Self, is also facilitated in modern academic institutions – those hallowed beacons of liberal thought. For is original thought by students really encouraged? Absolutely not, in fact, it is one of the most frowned upon things in academia – labeled as “plagiarism.” Isn't it possible to quote Nietzsche or paraphrase Jung and to KNOW it – or the more important essence of what the author was saying – to feel it, to understand it without benefit of some stupid cited source? We're absconding thought!!! At all corners we've erected buttresses and fortress walls to protect (enclose) our minds from thought! If we follow the historical progression of this decline of actual thought, can we come up with predictions for what comes next? Was Huxley right, are we headed for a Brave New World? Did someone predict the rise of facebook and all the other bullshit on the internet? Certainly some self-aware, cultural critic, possibly neo-luddite had to be aware that we were heading towards less and less thought. In fact, I think you can see it reflected in modern cinema – Bruce Willis' new film Surrogates (I think) is a reflection of what happens to a world controlled by automatons that are left on “auto pilot.”
Two other ideas floating around:
1 - A new rendition of On the Road. A search for the soul of America, inspired by Neil Gaiman's factual statement in American Gods: “America is the only country in the world that doesn't know who she is.” A road trip across America to find out who she is today, what her components are. To find common ground apart from all this partisan political bullshit...if it still exists. Also an exhortation to return to the time before consumerism, conceit and ostentatiousness that is modern, post-war America.
2 – The New Epistles of Paul. A series of suicide notes by several people named Paul, each at different stages of their lives. Each letter will be a critique of modernity and a exude a sense of alienation from a rapidly devolving society.
Saturday, April 23, 2011
I have not written in too long...but here is an attempt at commentary on the state of things.
It has been far too long since I actually sat down and wrote something...anything. I used to at least dabble in rudimentary poetic ramblings in notebooks on a regular basis. Lately (and by lately I mean for probably more than a year) I have not had the gumption to undertake any writing. Maybe it's because my life has been hectic, which to an extent it certainly has been especially over the course of the past 8 or so months. But probably of more accord is my laziness, and also from some sort of resentment that my writings seem to be of importance to no one other than myself. However, writing is me, it's what I do, it is the one thing that I have always excelled at. I cannot, no matter how hard I try, accept the Buddhist notion that sometimes words are not enough. An artful wordsmith can work wonders, not just on paper but on the fabric of the world.
I am increasingly growing alarmed at the state of things in the United States. Yes, some of this is my liberal inclinations running into the rise of the right-wing brick wall -- embodied most prominently by the "Tea Party". However there is more to it than that. I wish that I had the time today to sort all of this out, to write a thorough treatise on what I see and what I believe that sight is a foreshadowing of. But I can't, so I can only try valiantly to use what little time I have at hand to craft something that is at least vaguely cogent.
America and its people are not willing to do the things that need to be done to survive. Government is always a reflection of its people is my constant refrain for those who want to blame government for everything, and I believe that today this is more true than ever before. Americans want their cake and to eat it too. They want to cut spending, but save medicare as is. They want peace, but they'll support its supposed export at the point of the gun. They want to discontinue America's role as global police, but they'll support her role as guarantor of democratic progress (despite the lack of anything resembling the institutions that must be in place for democracy to succeed).
Alexis de Toqueville one wrote: "America is great because she is good. Should she ever cease to be good, she will cease to be great." Increasingly, I am afraid, America has given up its defense and pursuit of goodness in the world. Instead, our value set has become one of moral hypocrisy. It must be said here also, that I think Barack Obama has demonstrated immense cowardice in what I believe to be a genuine pursuit of the restoration of goodness as the basis for all of America's decisions and policies. Maybe, what it is is the desire to embody "goodness" so fully that he does not want to draw the ire or condemnation of anyone. But that is a futile pursuit. Ultimately, you can't please all of the people all of the time and try do so is the height of folly. But maybe it is something different than the desire to embody goodness that has brought him to the present course. Regardless, I believe that the Democrats should hold a primary for the next election cycle. Maybe some dark horse from some corner can save us from our collision course...or maybe not (Republicans certainly don't portend any such potential).
I for one don't fear the rise of the rest, nor do I think that America's days on top are necessarily numbered. However, there must be the gumption among the American population to persevere and to adapt to the changing of the times. I have made this argument before that America has become reliant upon a certain economic stasis, and I believe that economic stasis has begun to infiltrate other sectors of society -- chiefly, in this case, education. We have to break away from those who have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo at all costs. We must accept that some companies, maybe even some entire industries are going to disappear. In the short term, this means job losses for some. But it must be done, we can no longer insist that old industries be nursed into the future. We must also accept cuts to sacred cows like defense and medicare in order to ensure the system's long-term structural soundness. A lot of this is political suicide, but maybe it is time to think of it not as suicide as a shameful act but as the noble hara kiri commited by a warrior who has fought valiantly for a cause and so will accept nothing more than the same nobleness in death. Because right now, there is no longer anything resembling nobleness in politics -- and that is a travesty. Politics is no longer an endeavor for gentlemen, but a refuge for scoundrels, crooks and those with no moral compass.
Self-interest is all fine and great and should have a place in the world, but self-interest turned to greed is the world's new guiding light. And the diametric opposite of communism -- cut throat capitalism -- is no better for the world than were the evils of communism in the 20th century. Ultimately, what this all comes down to is a need for morality, a need for goodness in the world.
(P.S. I must apologize for the discordant and "choppy" nature of this post, I ran out of time and could not edit or refine what is really nothing more than an exercise in "stream of consciousness writing".)
I am increasingly growing alarmed at the state of things in the United States. Yes, some of this is my liberal inclinations running into the rise of the right-wing brick wall -- embodied most prominently by the "Tea Party". However there is more to it than that. I wish that I had the time today to sort all of this out, to write a thorough treatise on what I see and what I believe that sight is a foreshadowing of. But I can't, so I can only try valiantly to use what little time I have at hand to craft something that is at least vaguely cogent.
America and its people are not willing to do the things that need to be done to survive. Government is always a reflection of its people is my constant refrain for those who want to blame government for everything, and I believe that today this is more true than ever before. Americans want their cake and to eat it too. They want to cut spending, but save medicare as is. They want peace, but they'll support its supposed export at the point of the gun. They want to discontinue America's role as global police, but they'll support her role as guarantor of democratic progress (despite the lack of anything resembling the institutions that must be in place for democracy to succeed).
Alexis de Toqueville one wrote: "America is great because she is good. Should she ever cease to be good, she will cease to be great." Increasingly, I am afraid, America has given up its defense and pursuit of goodness in the world. Instead, our value set has become one of moral hypocrisy. It must be said here also, that I think Barack Obama has demonstrated immense cowardice in what I believe to be a genuine pursuit of the restoration of goodness as the basis for all of America's decisions and policies. Maybe, what it is is the desire to embody "goodness" so fully that he does not want to draw the ire or condemnation of anyone. But that is a futile pursuit. Ultimately, you can't please all of the people all of the time and try do so is the height of folly. But maybe it is something different than the desire to embody goodness that has brought him to the present course. Regardless, I believe that the Democrats should hold a primary for the next election cycle. Maybe some dark horse from some corner can save us from our collision course...or maybe not (Republicans certainly don't portend any such potential).
I for one don't fear the rise of the rest, nor do I think that America's days on top are necessarily numbered. However, there must be the gumption among the American population to persevere and to adapt to the changing of the times. I have made this argument before that America has become reliant upon a certain economic stasis, and I believe that economic stasis has begun to infiltrate other sectors of society -- chiefly, in this case, education. We have to break away from those who have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo at all costs. We must accept that some companies, maybe even some entire industries are going to disappear. In the short term, this means job losses for some. But it must be done, we can no longer insist that old industries be nursed into the future. We must also accept cuts to sacred cows like defense and medicare in order to ensure the system's long-term structural soundness. A lot of this is political suicide, but maybe it is time to think of it not as suicide as a shameful act but as the noble hara kiri commited by a warrior who has fought valiantly for a cause and so will accept nothing more than the same nobleness in death. Because right now, there is no longer anything resembling nobleness in politics -- and that is a travesty. Politics is no longer an endeavor for gentlemen, but a refuge for scoundrels, crooks and those with no moral compass.
Self-interest is all fine and great and should have a place in the world, but self-interest turned to greed is the world's new guiding light. And the diametric opposite of communism -- cut throat capitalism -- is no better for the world than were the evils of communism in the 20th century. Ultimately, what this all comes down to is a need for morality, a need for goodness in the world.
(P.S. I must apologize for the discordant and "choppy" nature of this post, I ran out of time and could not edit or refine what is really nothing more than an exercise in "stream of consciousness writing".)
Saturday, July 10, 2010
Fact-checking the fact checker
I've been reading a lot of blogs lately, from both those I agree with and those who I believe reside on Mars -- both sides, however, are helpful to me in that make me reassess and/or reinforce my own inclinations. It pretty much goes without saying though that most are from points of view with which I sympathize. At this juncture though, I think it's worthwhile to comment on one that I have never found myself agreeing with: Michael Ledeen.
For those who aren't familiar with him, Ledeen is a consultant to several branches of the federal government and former fellow at AEI. Especially under the Bush administration, he was renowned for his views on Iran -- a subject on which he continues to offer his commentary, and the topic for which I continue to follow him.
So let's start off with this one:
http://pajamasmedia.com/michaelledeen/2010/06/25/iran-wimps-out/.
Is he really surprised that Iran didn't follow through on this "promise"? It is not about wimping out or proving you have the cojones to defy the Israelis. Iran operates primarily by trying to rhetorically rally support to its cause, at the least actual cost possible. The promise to send another ship to break the blockade was a flippant one, and the Iranians likely never even began any sort of actual planning for such an operation. The promise, like so much else that the Iranians say regarding the Palestinian issue, was designed to do nothing more than demonstrate that Iran stands with the Palestinians...at least in theory -- they certainly aren't going to stick their necks to far out though, for fear of catching the ax themselves. Again, it's not about cowardice but about expediency and cost-benefit analysis. Even had Iran sent a ship and broken the blockade, it would have provided little tangible benefit for the Iranians. Primary point then: Iran's rhetoric is designed to gain influence, not to actually follow through on what is said. Yes, from time to time they do have to actually follow through in order to maintain credibility, but the IRGC will pick the least risky scenarios to do so.
Even his final word on the topic is misleading, as Ledeen tries to close with: "So I think it’s fair to say that anyone who claims that Iran has not launched military attacks outside its territory is either misinformed or dissembling. Quite the contrary; the Islamic Republic has conducted lethal military operations all over the world for decades." The argument that he is supposed to be debunking in not about Iran's conducting lethal military operations, but rather that Iran has in fact conducted an outright invasion of even a single country. To make an analogy of what I mean: The United States has a long history of conducting covert military operation in basically every country around the world, but before the invasion of Iraq those operations were limited-scale with limited objectives.
Moving on:
http://pajamasmedia.com/michaelledeen/2010/06/27/seeing-iran-plain/
I'll try to be brief with this one, as I'm on vacation and this really does deserve a very extensive treatment of all issues...for which I'm simply not willing to spare the time.
First, there is a massive difference between the statement that "Iran is an invading power" and "Iran is an aggressor state in the Middle East." An aggressor can, and usually does, carry out limited-scope aggressive exercises for strategic purposes but without risking destabilizing a state or entire region. Invasion by its very nature is destabilizing. Iran seeks nothing if not a certain type of stability in the region, one that is conducive to its own perpetuation.
This is also a rather simplistic take on what exactly the roles of Hamas and Hezbollah are vis-a-vis Iran and, more importantly, Israel. Both of them, but even more so for the latter, have moved beyond being mere proxies and into something more approaching the level of junior partners. Their ascendancy to national political prominence within their own respective localities are indicative of just how much power they do in fact have, power that they can now use to leverage even their Iranian backers. The ties between Iran and Hamas/Hezbollah are about expediency much more than ideology. Either side would desert the other if it would be more beneficial to their interests -- as not all of their interests parallel each other any more.
The Kurdish question has always been a problem in the Turkey-Iraq-Iran region, with Washington itself having gone back and forth on the best policy approach to "Kurdistan." Also, it's convenient that the "separatists groups" are not specifically identified. For my part, I can't help but think that this must include the PKK -- a group that is, in fact, on the U.S. list of terrorist organizations. Again, the point here is stability; a point made even more salient by the fact that the problem is located right on Iran's back door. Iraq's territorial integrity, if it is indeed so important, would be better served by the quelling of Kurdish separatists, as they desire their own independent territory at the expense of Iraq's integrity.
I'm not going to even muster an attempt at addressing the state of the opposition movement in Iran, as I believe that this issue has been better addressed by the Leveretts. Here's just one piece on the matter: http://www.raceforiran.com/the-green-movement-is-not-the-future-of-iran
Even the final paragraph of Ledeen's piece continues in the vein of over-estimating the ideological cohesiveness of the Iranian hard-liners. The hard-liners, from the very outset of the revolution, have never been a single monolithic ideological movement, a fact that becomes increasingly more apparent the farther we move, temporally, from Khomeini's rule. Read Guardians of the Revolution or Hidden Iran, both by Ray Takeyh, for more on the divisions within Iran's clerical elite. Moreover, picking the dress-code as a means of illustrating the division among the hard-liners offers little more than superficiality -- and the dress code has been progressively easing since the day it was put into place.
That's enough for one day from me.
For those who aren't familiar with him, Ledeen is a consultant to several branches of the federal government and former fellow at AEI. Especially under the Bush administration, he was renowned for his views on Iran -- a subject on which he continues to offer his commentary, and the topic for which I continue to follow him.
So let's start off with this one:
http://pajamasmedia.com/michaelledeen/2010/06/25/iran-wimps-out/.
Is he really surprised that Iran didn't follow through on this "promise"? It is not about wimping out or proving you have the cojones to defy the Israelis. Iran operates primarily by trying to rhetorically rally support to its cause, at the least actual cost possible. The promise to send another ship to break the blockade was a flippant one, and the Iranians likely never even began any sort of actual planning for such an operation. The promise, like so much else that the Iranians say regarding the Palestinian issue, was designed to do nothing more than demonstrate that Iran stands with the Palestinians...at least in theory -- they certainly aren't going to stick their necks to far out though, for fear of catching the ax themselves. Again, it's not about cowardice but about expediency and cost-benefit analysis. Even had Iran sent a ship and broken the blockade, it would have provided little tangible benefit for the Iranians. Primary point then: Iran's rhetoric is designed to gain influence, not to actually follow through on what is said. Yes, from time to time they do have to actually follow through in order to maintain credibility, but the IRGC will pick the least risky scenarios to do so.
Even his final word on the topic is misleading, as Ledeen tries to close with: "So I think it’s fair to say that anyone who claims that Iran has not launched military attacks outside its territory is either misinformed or dissembling. Quite the contrary; the Islamic Republic has conducted lethal military operations all over the world for decades." The argument that he is supposed to be debunking in not about Iran's conducting lethal military operations, but rather that Iran has in fact conducted an outright invasion of even a single country. To make an analogy of what I mean: The United States has a long history of conducting covert military operation in basically every country around the world, but before the invasion of Iraq those operations were limited-scale with limited objectives.
Moving on:
http://pajamasmedia.com/michaelledeen/2010/06/27/seeing-iran-plain/
I'll try to be brief with this one, as I'm on vacation and this really does deserve a very extensive treatment of all issues...for which I'm simply not willing to spare the time.
First, there is a massive difference between the statement that "Iran is an invading power" and "Iran is an aggressor state in the Middle East." An aggressor can, and usually does, carry out limited-scope aggressive exercises for strategic purposes but without risking destabilizing a state or entire region. Invasion by its very nature is destabilizing. Iran seeks nothing if not a certain type of stability in the region, one that is conducive to its own perpetuation.
This is also a rather simplistic take on what exactly the roles of Hamas and Hezbollah are vis-a-vis Iran and, more importantly, Israel. Both of them, but even more so for the latter, have moved beyond being mere proxies and into something more approaching the level of junior partners. Their ascendancy to national political prominence within their own respective localities are indicative of just how much power they do in fact have, power that they can now use to leverage even their Iranian backers. The ties between Iran and Hamas/Hezbollah are about expediency much more than ideology. Either side would desert the other if it would be more beneficial to their interests -- as not all of their interests parallel each other any more.
The Kurdish question has always been a problem in the Turkey-Iraq-Iran region, with Washington itself having gone back and forth on the best policy approach to "Kurdistan." Also, it's convenient that the "separatists groups" are not specifically identified. For my part, I can't help but think that this must include the PKK -- a group that is, in fact, on the U.S. list of terrorist organizations. Again, the point here is stability; a point made even more salient by the fact that the problem is located right on Iran's back door. Iraq's territorial integrity, if it is indeed so important, would be better served by the quelling of Kurdish separatists, as they desire their own independent territory at the expense of Iraq's integrity.
I'm not going to even muster an attempt at addressing the state of the opposition movement in Iran, as I believe that this issue has been better addressed by the Leveretts. Here's just one piece on the matter: http://www.raceforiran.com/the-green-movement-is-not-the-future-of-iran
Even the final paragraph of Ledeen's piece continues in the vein of over-estimating the ideological cohesiveness of the Iranian hard-liners. The hard-liners, from the very outset of the revolution, have never been a single monolithic ideological movement, a fact that becomes increasingly more apparent the farther we move, temporally, from Khomeini's rule. Read Guardians of the Revolution or Hidden Iran, both by Ray Takeyh, for more on the divisions within Iran's clerical elite. Moreover, picking the dress-code as a means of illustrating the division among the hard-liners offers little more than superficiality -- and the dress code has been progressively easing since the day it was put into place.
That's enough for one day from me.
Thursday, March 5, 2009
The Drums of War begin their slow cadence (or: The Coming of WWIII)
Well Israel is at again. First the question that begs to be asked: Has the Islamic Republic of Iran ever conducted a direct attack on Israel? In short: NO! While it is true that the "Iranian proxies" Hamas and Hezbollah have engaged in direct and indirect military confrontation with Israel, Iran itself has never done so. Further, the likelihood of Iran launching a nuclear attack on Israel seems very unlikely, especially when one considers that the Islamic Republic possesses both biological and chemical weapons but has neither used them against Israel nor dispersed them to their "proxies" for use on Israel (but Israel has used both cluster bombs and white phosphorous in Lebanon and Gaza). Also, there is no way to launch a nuclear attack on Israel and not kill hundreds of thousands of Palestinians. The Islamic Republic is nothing if not rational...despite what their RHETORIC (look up the exact definition of the word) may portend.
Moreover, while the United States (despite Obama's promise of "change")continues to be Israel's biggest supporter and financial backer, guess who backs Iran...that's right China and Russia. Two nuclear powers vs. two nuclear powers. It seems to me that Israel is playing a dangerous game. Also, Iran effectively controls approximately 20% of global oil output via the Strait of Hormuz, which they could easily seal in a matter of hours (not to mention the Russian and Chinese oil reserves). An attack on the Saudi and Iraqi oil fields would also not be an implausible option for the Iranians.
A final point on which this entire situation may hinge: why is Israel allowed possession of nuclear weapons (estimates put their stockpile as being greater than China's, giving them the third largest nuclear stockpile in the world) while Iran is vilified for possession of enriched uranium (a right that they are guaranteed under the NPT, which they signed while--big surprise here, given their overt contempt for international law--Israel did not) and not nuclear weapons? (Perhaps someone on Obama's team cares to reread the Dec. 2007 NIE, which clearly stated that Iran had halted it's nuclear weapons program).
A somewhat related question: Of what strategic value is Israel to the United States? In short, not much. They have no oil nor other resources, they have proven to be a feckless "ally" (always begging for more but never giving in return, actually doing the exact opposite of giving--they have after all, stolen more national secrets than any other nation). As for the argument of their being a fellow democracy in a sea of authoritarianism...well that depends on one's definition of "democracy" (it is such a broad word after all). Their treatment of the Palestinians uncannily resembles apartheid...so I guess it's democracy to the extent of a "tyranny of the minority."
Iran has faced overwhelming odds continually since the inception of the Islamic Republic, each time it has come out on top. Will "we" (for Israel and the United States seem joined at the hip when it comes to Middle East policy) fall prey to the same fatalistic mistake as Iraq did in the 1980s (having both international support and the fourth largest army in the world)?
Change did not come for Israel with the re-election of Benjamin Netanyahu, but did change come for U.S. Middle East policy? That remains to be seen. Any attack by Israel on Iran would require them to fly over Iraqi airspace, which would require American permission. Will we grant it? If not, then will we punish the Israeli's for violating our will should they choose to do so?
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1236103158937&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
Moreover, while the United States (despite Obama's promise of "change")continues to be Israel's biggest supporter and financial backer, guess who backs Iran...that's right China and Russia. Two nuclear powers vs. two nuclear powers. It seems to me that Israel is playing a dangerous game. Also, Iran effectively controls approximately 20% of global oil output via the Strait of Hormuz, which they could easily seal in a matter of hours (not to mention the Russian and Chinese oil reserves). An attack on the Saudi and Iraqi oil fields would also not be an implausible option for the Iranians.
A final point on which this entire situation may hinge: why is Israel allowed possession of nuclear weapons (estimates put their stockpile as being greater than China's, giving them the third largest nuclear stockpile in the world) while Iran is vilified for possession of enriched uranium (a right that they are guaranteed under the NPT, which they signed while--big surprise here, given their overt contempt for international law--Israel did not) and not nuclear weapons? (Perhaps someone on Obama's team cares to reread the Dec. 2007 NIE, which clearly stated that Iran had halted it's nuclear weapons program).
A somewhat related question: Of what strategic value is Israel to the United States? In short, not much. They have no oil nor other resources, they have proven to be a feckless "ally" (always begging for more but never giving in return, actually doing the exact opposite of giving--they have after all, stolen more national secrets than any other nation). As for the argument of their being a fellow democracy in a sea of authoritarianism...well that depends on one's definition of "democracy" (it is such a broad word after all). Their treatment of the Palestinians uncannily resembles apartheid...so I guess it's democracy to the extent of a "tyranny of the minority."
Iran has faced overwhelming odds continually since the inception of the Islamic Republic, each time it has come out on top. Will "we" (for Israel and the United States seem joined at the hip when it comes to Middle East policy) fall prey to the same fatalistic mistake as Iraq did in the 1980s (having both international support and the fourth largest army in the world)?
Change did not come for Israel with the re-election of Benjamin Netanyahu, but did change come for U.S. Middle East policy? That remains to be seen. Any attack by Israel on Iran would require them to fly over Iraqi airspace, which would require American permission. Will we grant it? If not, then will we punish the Israeli's for violating our will should they choose to do so?
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1236103158937&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
So you wanna overthrow Iran's government?
I am not now, nor will I ever be, a supporter of the flawed "Bush-era" policy of regime change -- especially not when it is applied to a region as volatile as the Middle East and more especially not when it is alluded to in regards to what I consider the most influential country in the region: Iran. But with Dennis Ross at the helm of U.S. policy in the Persian Gulf, it appears that we will be getting more of the same (Ross was part of the team that screwed the Palestinians over at Camp David). This is a disjointed post, undoubtedly, but it's what is on my mind at the moment.
1) There could be, emphasize COULD be, change on the horizon in Iranian politics. Specifically coming in the form of the former and possibly soon-to-be president of the Islamic Republic: Mohammad Khatami. President Khatami reached out to both the Clinton and Bush administrations, even helping the Bush administration in toppling the Taliban in Afghanistan. He is, at present, the best hope for normalizing relations between Iran and the West. If he's elected, will Mr. Ross change tact on Iran?
2) I smell an Osirak Redux on the horizon with Benjamin Netanyahu's ascension to the Prime Minister position in Israel. This seems even more plausible when one considers that Bushehr just went online yesterday.
3) The subject of the next paper that I will be writing is that of the Revolutionary Guards, or "Sepah" as they are commonly referred too. I believe that the real reins of power within the Islamic Republic reside not with Ahmadinejad (or whoever will succeed him, AND HE WILL BE REPLACED), nor with Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, nor with "the kingmaker" Ali Rafsanjani, but instead with the Sepah who have their fingers in everything in Iran. Khamenei's power and authority rests very extensively on the loyalty of the Sepah...
1) There could be, emphasize COULD be, change on the horizon in Iranian politics. Specifically coming in the form of the former and possibly soon-to-be president of the Islamic Republic: Mohammad Khatami. President Khatami reached out to both the Clinton and Bush administrations, even helping the Bush administration in toppling the Taliban in Afghanistan. He is, at present, the best hope for normalizing relations between Iran and the West. If he's elected, will Mr. Ross change tact on Iran?
2) I smell an Osirak Redux on the horizon with Benjamin Netanyahu's ascension to the Prime Minister position in Israel. This seems even more plausible when one considers that Bushehr just went online yesterday.
3) The subject of the next paper that I will be writing is that of the Revolutionary Guards, or "Sepah" as they are commonly referred too. I believe that the real reins of power within the Islamic Republic reside not with Ahmadinejad (or whoever will succeed him, AND HE WILL BE REPLACED), nor with Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, nor with "the kingmaker" Ali Rafsanjani, but instead with the Sepah who have their fingers in everything in Iran. Khamenei's power and authority rests very extensively on the loyalty of the Sepah...
Sunday, February 8, 2009
Disgusting!
President Obama correctly labeled bank exec bonuses "shameful" last week. Now there is an article in the NY Times defending those bank execs and their exorbitant salaries. If they indeed can't live off the proposed cap of $500,000/year, tough! They should have thought about that before they dragged everybody else down with them! Why should they not have to make sacrifices when thousands of people around the country are losing their homes because of the mistakes of these same execs? Someone who lost their home because the CEO of Citi was a moron is certainly not sending their children to private school and is not buying freaking $10 frozen hot chocolates!
Read the trash here
Read the trash here
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)