Fog Walking

2007-10-11T11:44:00.000-04:00

There will be millions and millions of words written about Radiohead's In Rainbows. But a day after listening to the album for the first time (and many more times after that), I feel like this is an album of joyful paranoia (para-joy-a?) -- the culmination of a paranoid (android) journey from apocalypse (OK Computer), to the words that come after from a digital grave (Kid A & Amnesiac), to a tremulous re-engagement with a broken world (Hail to the Thief), to this: A transcendent acceptance of brokenness and a desire to find love and happiness in the ruins. I can imagine this album being the soundtrack to the lives of those lonely few that we meet at the end of Cormac McCarthy's The Road, loving and living in the midst of post-apocalyptic horrors. This is the album you listen to while contemplating bringing a child into this world (or conceiving that child) in the face of everything that's so undeniably fucked. For these reasons, this album might be the most necessary Radiohead album; there is no way forward without the thesis that there is a good life to be lived in the face of (or shortly after) catastrophe.

Defunct

2007-04-16T19:13:00.000-04:00

This blog is, sadly, defunct. The sprit behind the blog has been re-funked at http://apundectomy.blogspot.com.

Mind-blowing

2006-03-16T10:48:00.000-05:00

So I haven't posted in a while. Senior essay + running Elmseed + senior year = no blogging. But recent events demand a response. It seems most everyone is asking questions about why the democratic leadership is so effing incompetent. There was the Daily Show piece about it, which you can find at www.crooksandliars.com. The best line from that comes when Ed Helms responds to a Dem strategist's snide chortle about how it doesn't hurt to run against Republicans who keep making mistakes. Here's something close to Helms' response: "Yeah, I got mugged once. This bum was beating me with a bottle. And I sat there and decided, I'll do nothing and wait for him to accidentally hit himself with the bottle. And he did! I was unconscious, but I'm pretty sure I won that one." That is the perfect analogy for Democratic strategy.

I just do not understand how decrying a President with low 30s approval ratings can possibly be a political misstep! I'm no political genius, but if you criticize the president, you have 60+% of the American people behind you! Triangulation? Are you kidding me? You have two thirds of the triangle just by honestly criticizing the President.

Then there's the NYTimes article about how the prospect of censure and impeachment are going to rally the Republican base. As others, especially Digby at digbysblog.blogspot.com, have pointed out, this is the one thing that might actually rally the Democratic base. More so than Hillary's desperate pandering to the right. More than the hype around Barak Obama. And the issue does not have to be impeachment. It should be oversight. It should be a restoration of checks and balances. It should be a return to democracy. That does not necessarily involve impeachment—it simply involves the Congress doing its job.

Fair enough. I've said very little original here. But this is really a demand for someone to explain to me how the current Democratic strategy makes sense.

Straight shooters

2006-02-16T21:42:00.000-05:00

One would think that Dick Cheney's obvious incompetence in an area that so many members of his political base understand would demonstrate the point that progressives have been making about this administration for five years: They don't know what they're doing. Sadly, that doesn't seem to be the take away message.

I wouldn't be surprised, in fact, to see a slow 180º turn by the media on this one. Cheney shoots a guy in the face (manly), then "mans" up and admits it (manly), then does a western cowboy silent grimace (uber-manly ). Cheney comes out seeming tough, emotionally approachable, human. Fox News is already going in that direction with their "How must Dick Cheney feel?" line of inquiry (I'm sure it's like he was shot through the heart, as opposed to his friend, who was shot through the heart).

And this brings me to "straight shooting." Apparently, if you're a conservative, it doesn't matter if you make a mistake, as long as you admit it. Look at Chertoff, or Brown (who was roughed up in front of the Senate). They expect us to appreciate their manly admission of error. As Sandy Cohen said last week on The OC, kids are expected to lie, but men are expected to own up to their failures. So Cheney shot a guy straight in the face, but he has admitted it, and can be absolved. He didn't hit a quail, but he hit what he thought was a quail head on (nicely done).

Boys will be boys, and men will be men—which is identical to being boys, except you admit to idiotic tom-foolery. I'm glad that's all cleared up now. Mrs. Cheney, Chertoff and Brown can play their supporting, wifely roles, sticking by their husbands even in trying times (acceptable if husband A. short someone, or B. let thousands die stranded in a hurricane, but unacceptable if he was unfaithful). We have faithfullly adhered to gender roles, reemphasized the conservatives' unique calim on masculinity, and made those hand-wringing liberals sorry for ever doubting how straight we can shoot.

Enemies: the rise of the other, the antagonist, and the decline of postmodernity

2006-02-15T16:40:00.000-05:00

Who are our enemies? Why do we have enemies, and what purpose is there to have enemies? Why can't we just be good pious people that walk around all the time saying good-day, or asalamalakim.

So what the hell am I talking about? I refer to a rising tide in America to use words such as enemy and evil to encourage a sense of otherness (orientalist) and thus envelop society in a good/bad binary.

The conservative revolution has done much more than push forth an agenda...it has seeped into the national dialogue. The 'I' is replaced by impersonal normative statement: no longer must I decide for myself, so much as theory and theology should decide for me. As Bush said a few months ago.

In the years ahead you will find that indifferent or cynical people accomplish little that makes them proud. You'll find that confronting injustice and evil requires a vision of goodness and truth. You'll find that many in your community, especially those younger than you, look to you as an example of conduct and leadership. For your sake, and for the sake of our country, I hope you'll always strive to be men of conviction and character.

Being a good person requires a fusion with a good force: an objective goodness. Of course conservatives can make good with their financial ties by announcing that maximizing oneself is in God's good design. That, in very Calvinist terms, being good and showing God how good you are is the best way of earning your place in heaven: it is why Calvinists were also the most prosperous groups in society; despite the great discrimination it faced from other dominant sects.

Bush's words highlight a new moral character. No long are moral sentiments sufficient for our understanding: a good person now defines himself against the image of a large and imposing other: that in divine language we have gone away from the individual and returned to the macroscopic: the creation of a national mythology around conquest and destiny, supremacy and power.

These thoughts have always been around...they were equally the products of WWII. But society, recovering from the 70s and 80s, and even into the postmodern existence of the 90s and consumer culture...we have revived our destiny in mythic terms.

There is good and bad. And we need enemies, regardless of whether they are deserving to be enemies; regardless of any history that should deflect our actions, or any fact that should make us question. We need enemies to make us believe we are children of the divine.

For a Woman President

2006-02-03T12:13:00.000-05:00

Every time I talk to someone about Hillary Clinton running for president, or how long it will be before a woman wins, the conversation takes a decidedly defeatist lean, and ends with, "That will never happen." But let me drop what "would" happen so I can make an argument for what "should" happen.

Let's face it, our government will continue to do a lot of things that should not be done. And perhaps, as my friends say, a woman will not get elected. But should a woman be president? I would argue that, even in times of conflict—perhaps especially in times of conflict—a woman should be president. I don't mean a woman who talks tough like a man, but a feminist who understands how to build consensus, bring voices to the table, and can understand the complexity of the issues our country faces.

It's ridiculous to me that people talk about George W. Bush being a strong leader when he has done so much to divide the country. A strong leader unites, not divides. Unfortunately, he's shown himself far more able to divide and conquer the American electorate than he has to defeat the Iraqi insurgency. In the process, we find ourselves in an incredibly rancorous political era, with our country and war effort suffering for it.

Feminist theory, the feminist lens for evaluating problems, is to seek resolution by bringing disparate perspectives to the table. Just imagine how much more coherent our approach in Iraq could be if the president had listened to more perspectives than simply Cheney and Rumsfeld. A woman, feminist president would never find herself relying on two trusted advisors.

So our country might be too scared, too terrorized by our own government, to see beyond tough-talk cowboy language. But, if we want to win the war on terror and strengthen our civic spirit, then we should elect a woman president

Who Wins?

2006-02-02T04:12:00.000-05:00

Today the House passed House Resolution 653, which is related to S.1932 that was passed using VP Cheney's tiebreaking vote.

It is, of course, the measure that calls for the end or revision of over 150 social programs. The first problem is that this cut is not enough. We will still be in deficit each year; which means the debt has no place to go than up.

There is no firm plan to pay down the debt.

And in the meanwhile, defense spending remains not only an impressive chunk of discretionary spending -- but there is no cap on its continuance.

Our polemic, it seems, is no longer liberty v. security. It is not so banal, so simple and understandable as this. We have through revisions to Medicare, the death of programs such as Adult Literacy etc. come to hurt most of the programs that go to those with the most need. The response by the government is to offer firm tax breaks that put money back into the hands of working adults. The irony of it all: those that don't pay taxes because they are too poor not only do not get a rebate, they get programs cut.

I would like to single out the great Congressman from NY Randy Kuhl. Why? Because he is my congressman and his top issue is this kind of financial literacy. Of course huge deficits are not suggested (although their economic effects are believed to be minimal). And I must say that many efforts, at least how they are advertised, try to better manage programs. But while the gist of the resolution is not wrong, the thought process seems a bit off.

In a modern welfare state, the task of government has been to provide for those least fortunate complete with the understanding that some people will not take advantage of their services. It catches people from falling through the cracks, but in itself is not yeast -- it doesn't make people rise up like a phoenix. Providing these necessary tools that free-market society does not offer, or would not without enticements, is considered by our culture and society the right thing to do.

Redefining this through minimizing these programs has drastic consequences. As a meritocratic nation, or so we shall become, the emphasis on growth of lets say 85% of the nation shall proceed at the competitive stream. And with minimizing valuable programs and taking away loan opportunities we cut a large percentage of our population out of the loop.

The population size and effect...I need numbers, and will look them up and run calculations (however shifty they may be). And as I stay up at the early hours this morning reading the actual text of some small passages it is rather shocking what is happening. A disabled veteran, for instance, can only claim upto 10,000 when returning from war to have his house adjusted for standards, or the same to buy one that is already outfitted. Of course people have read how it effects us college students: nothing seems to be too far out of the ordinary except they are changing the Pell Grant rates, and there will be, asthe NY Times reported, higher loan rates. Overall, it is going to yield an interesting few years as this lasts until 2010.

What does this mean for the country? I feel a pretty strong shift. Of course this wont call an end to pork-barrel projects that build bridges to no-where and fund efforts that never happen; and worse yet supply funds in kickback schemes such as the one we have seen in Iraq, and the bribery scandals that have recently embroiled Congress. I would call these egregious issues that should take pre-eminancy, but I suppose I should take my back seat -- I don't control the agenda, but I sure as hell wish I did.

It all makes me quite livid, particularly with Congressman Kuhl for his complicity. Why him? because he is MY Congressman. I think I will ask him: If we are without liberty nor opportunity, is security even worth the argument? It is quite the interesting predicament. I do not need to melodramatize it so much; but it is a real issue - something I believe deserves more attention than I think it has reserved. A story of such historic proportions shouldn't be an afterthought. I would hope people renew the fight to question the legitimacy; it was good to read many moderate republicans voted almost shamefully and wish they could change their vote.

Note to self

2005-11-07T01:46:00.000-05:00

Stop being lame—return to blogging.

P.S. It's really late at night now. Start blogging when you're awake.

P.P.S. Prepare presentation on why economic inequality is bad for economic growth to deliver in front of very conservative high school teacher's economic classes. Fulfill dream of being liberal alum coming back to deliver profound and convincing "Na-na-na-na-na."

The good old days

2005-08-03T11:12:00.000-04:00

Once upon a time, you'd have to launch a coupla Cruise missiles, invade a sovereign state, or assassinate a foreign leader if you wanted to distract the country from your administration's pisspoor performance. How silly past presidents must feel knowing that now the CIA has only to abduct innocent, vacationing white women or let loose a coupla sharks in coastal waters to distract the public for months on end. Wagging the dog is so ridiculously easy now. Does it worry anyone else? I mean, our government is getting more powerful, and it's simultaneously becoming easier to manipulate the public. Yeah. Bad, bad convergence.

The best Valerie Plame post I've seen

2005-07-13T09:48:00.000-04:00

The Valerie Plame affair is as sordid as it is confusing. Did Rove break the law? Was Plame a covert agent? What is a covert agent? Why is Scott McClellan so happy to be the President's lamb for slaughter?

To help us understand all of this, check out this guest spot by Larry Johnson over at TPMCafe. This guy's a former CIA operative, and explains a little about why this Valerie Plame affair is such an important scandal, and why it should have devastating political implications for the White House.

Is the press corps growing balls?

2005-07-12T09:13:00.000-04:00

Watch as Scott McClellan makes an ass of himself and a usually subdued White House press corps decides to stop rolling over.

(Video hosted by Crooks and Liars.)

Kant and Operation Yellow Elephant

2005-07-11T11:36:00.000-04:00

Some of you may have already seen the effort, appropriately called Operation Yellow Elephant, to encourage College Republicans to enlist in the army. I discussed how chickenhawks tend to rationalize away any personal sense of duty to the Iraq War in an eariler post andPhoebe asked whether young, well-off Democrats who don't want to see poor, minority youth fighting by themselves have an equal obligation to join the war in order to support and fight alongside the troops already there. When I posted Chickenhawks Rationalize, I thought about including a paragraph addressing that question, but didn't have anything lined up, so I went ahead and posted without it.

Now, I've done the necessary thinking and I have a response that both answers the question and helps to illuminate the sickness at the heart of pro-war, enlistment-age Republican movement. The place I looked for some enlightenment was Kant's Fundamental Principals of the Metaphysic of Morals, written in 1785. (Obviously, not the best place to look to convince a conservative of much of anything, but if they're going to be talking about duty, they should at least be able to deal in an intellectual way with a guy who was really all about it.) What follows is a quick rundown of Kant's ideas, so if you know this already, feel free to skim/skip entirely. At the heart of Kant's ethical worldview is the idea of the "categorical imperative"—a duty to action that is moral regardless of circumstances. In order to know whether an imperative (e.g. Thou shalt not kill) is indeed a categorical imperative and thus universal law, it's useful to think about the categorical imperative in three ways, which Kant outlined.

The first (Universal Law formulation): "Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law."
The second (Humanity or End in Itself formulation): "Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end."
The third (Kingdom of Ends formulation) combines the two: "All maxims as proceeding from our own [hypothetical] making of law ought to harmonise with a possible kingdom of ends." (Taken from the Wikipedia article on the Categorical Imperative.)

For the sake of a quick example in how to think like Kant, take this excerpt from Fundamental Principals (also called the Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals), in which Kant makes an example of a line of thinking that violates the first formulation because it cannot become a universal law—everyone cannot do as the man in the example does without arriving at a logical inconsistency:

[A man] finds himself forced by necessity to borrow money. He
knows that he will not be able to repay it, but sees also that nothing
will be lent to him unless he promises stoutly to repay it in a
definite time. He desires to make this promise, but he has still so
much conscience as to ask himself: "Is it not unlawful and
inconsistent with duty to get out of a difficulty in this way?"
Suppose however that he resolves to do so: then the maxim of his
action would be expressed thus: "When I think myself in want of money,
I will borrow money and promise to repay it, although I know that I
never can do so." Now this principle of self-love or of one's own
advantage may perhaps be consistent with my whole future welfare;
but the question now is, "Is it right?" I change then the suggestion
of self-love into a universal law, and state the question thus: "How
would it be if my maxim were a universal law?" Then I see at once that
it could never hold as a universal law of nature, but would
necessarily contradict itself. For supposing it to be a universal
law that everyone when he thinks himself in a difficulty should be
able to promise whatever he pleases, with the purpose of not keeping
his promise, the promise itself would become impossible, as well as
the end that one might have in view in it, since no one would consider
that anything was promised to him, but would ridicule all such
statements as vain pretences.

Everyone still with me? If you understood the example, we can move on, because I'm just going to use the universal law formulation of the categorical imperative to answer Phoebe's question and make some other points.

Let's look at a young college Republican's maxim, or principle, as Kant would. So a young pro-war Republican's maxim is this: "Do not fight in a just war if fighting would put your ambitions and safety at risk, but instead ensure the war is fought by other people." (I assume that a "just" war is a war that can be ethically fought, which is a big assumption about a lot of things, but let's just take it.) Now, if we were to make this universal law, clearly no one would be fighting any wars (which wouldn't be a bad thing). Running around shooting at people who are shooting at you is risky business, and there's no fighting in a war and being perfectly safe. So if everyone adopted that maxim, there would be no militants, there would be no war, and there would be a contradiciton, since the war would not be fought and the maxim would be violated.

And to further clarify things, that maxim also violates the second formulation of the categorical imperative. By ensuring that a war is fought by others and not by you, you make those other people means to an end, and do not treat them as ends in themselves. Those people are protecting you from doing your own duty (we're talking about a "just" war); they are a means to the fulfillment of your career ambitions. So, the young Republican maxim clearly violates the "categorical imperative." Their maxim is immoral.

What about the young Democrat's maxim? I'll state it as this: "If a war is unjust, do not fight in it and work to free others of any legal requirements to fight in it." Basically, don't fight an unjust war and try and get the enlisted men and women who have to, by their terms of duty, out of there (or if they're also following your maxim, make sure there are no legal ramifications for their refusal to fight). Can this maxim be made into universal law? Certainly. Whenever an unjust war would come along, no one would fight in it. There would be no unjust war, and, if you believe there's no such thing as just war, no war at all. There's no contradiction there. The maxim stands as a categorical imperative; it is moral.

* * * * *

Let's leave the dry philosophy behind. The logic at work in Kant's imperatives also reveals how the argument that Republicans are making is fundamentally despotic and the position of young Democrats is fundamentally democratic. In a despotic society, we can all make other people do our bidding; we can force them to do our true duties for us if those duties are unpleasant. If there was a society that operated only on the young Republican maxim, the most powerful would enslave the weaker, sending them out to fight war after war while the powerful fulfill their ambitions and are made happy and fat. Basically, you're talking about feudalism.

If you imagine a society where everyone follows the Democratic maxim, you have a democratic society. Not fighting in unjust wars is pure democratic action; the government is at the mercy of the people. Bureaucrats cannot wage unjust wars because they are rendered army-less by the maxim. The government is at the mercy of the people.

This is what I mean by illuminating the sickness at the heart of the young Republican movement. These arguments really reveal how the young, Republican, pro-war movement is not a democratic exercise—these are a bunch of despots we're talking about. These are men and women who wish to use their fellow Americans as means to their ends. These are not democrats in the little-d sense. Values of democracy, citizenship, civic duty have all disappeared from these students' thinking and in their place is despotism, entitlement, and ambition.

I'm not seeking absolution for Democrats who sit around and do nothing but wring their hands. I'm seeking justification for the position that you don't have any duty to fight for a mistake—that you're not doing anyone but the power-hungry any favors by making yourself a tool of a mistaken military project. Instead, you have a duty to keep your fellow citizens from dieing for the wrong cause. Alongside Operation Yellow Elephant must be a rallying cry for young democrats (little-d) to lobby their Congressmen and their fellows for peace and as swift an end to our involvement in the Iraq War as we can manage. In the meantime, we all should be working to support our troops in the truest sense—doing everything we can to see them home safe.

The unbearable heaviness of being . . . morally indignant

2005-07-08T12:46:00.000-04:00

Sometimes it's enough to keep me from writing anything. Such is the case right now. But there is a new blog I'm involved with at elmseed.blogspot.com. There's nothing there yet, but there will be. Elmseed is the non-profit micro-credit organization I'm involved in, and the blog will be a place to discuss big ideas of economic development, micro-credit in the United States, and whether full-time students can be part-time loan officers.

"Fascism": Sesame Street's word of the day

2005-06-26T09:59:00.000-04:00

After the election, my father, uncle and I debated about what the totalitarian regime that Bush would try and create would look like. My father and I were thinking "fascism," playing on the fear of the American people to create a mostly secular, corporate-backed, kleptocratic fascist state. My uncle was betting on theocracy, demanded and managed by the evangelist Christian right. Obviously, the debate was premature. But it seems less hasty every day.

In his latest editorial, Frank Rich tells the emerging story of how the administration is harnessing public radio and television as propaganda outlets. Some highlights:

Kenneth Tomlinson, the chairman of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, paid someone $14,170 to watch Bill Moyer's "Now" and listen to programs on NPR like the Diane Rehm show, in order to rate every guest as either C for conservative or L for liberal (liberal meaning anti-administration).
Patricia Harrison, the new president of the CPB is a former co-chairwoman of the Republican National Committee who, as assistant secretary of state, praised the fake news stories that her department produced as "good news" stories.
Tomlinson today is head of the Broadcasting Board of Governors, which oversees all of the United States' non-military propaganda outlets. So he is simultaneously the head of our propaganda efforts oversees and our domestic public broadcasting effort.

So the corporate MSM has no problem cementing pseudo-fascist ties to the administration, and now the public broadcasting infrastructure is at risk of becoming another branch of the administration's propaganda machine. Good luck, democracy. It was nice knowing you.

Chickenhawks rationalize

2005-06-25T12:28:00.000-04:00

Everyone who's ever wanted to see rationalization at work should read this story about young Republicans explaining about why they don't want to go fight in a war that some of them consider a "moral imperative." The thing that bothers me most about these young, dumb Republicans is that some of their reasoning runs like this: "I can do more to help the troops by working for the Republican party." Huh? You mean the same Republican party that has failed to provide our troops with the armored vehicles and equipment they need? The same Republican party that has been so ineffectual with supplying our soldiers that young Marines are told to buy $600 worth of equipment on their own if they want to survive? Hey, Chickenhawks, you're not doing the troops any favors by playing patty-cake with US congressional aides, raising money for the Republican party, or planning your K-street careers. I'd really like to have a reporter go up to a Marine who's just finished a day's hard slog through a Baghdad slum and ask: "Excuse me, son. How does it make you feel to know that so many young Americans are supporting you by going door-to-door for the Republicna party?" He'll be like, "A-wha?! Ex-fucking-scuse me?" If the war in Iraq is a moral imperative, helping a political party does not constitute coming to the aid of your nation. And, believe it or not, there are soldiers who are not Republicans! Oh well. Listen, it's as simple as this: If you're going to spew rhetoric about why the war in Iraq is a "moral imperative," you had best have a better excuse for not enlisting than your own political ambitions.

Oh, and a special note to one Vivian Lee, who said: "Frankly, I'd like to be a politician. I want to live to see that." Frankly, Vivian, you have no career in politics because of that comment. Ahhh, the irony. But it's okay; you'll make more money as a lobbyist anyway.

Letter writing

2005-06-25T11:48:00.000-04:00

Here's the email I wrote to my congressman, Randy Kuhl (R-NY):

Dear Mr. Kuhl,

I write to ask why you have not yet signed Representative Conyers' letter to President Bush asking him to answer critical questions about the Downing Street minutes. The Downing Street minutes present direct, legitimate evidence of a usurpation of government power that has driven us into a costly war, with 20,000 American soldiers killed or wounded. Given the seriousness of the issue, I would have assumed that a responsible and intelligent representative such as yourself would have eagerly signed the letter, regardless of political allegiance. Sometimes, party-lines must take a backseat to doing the right thing, defending our democracy, and holding the executive branch to the level of scrutiny that our founding fathers envisioned when they designed our government. To do otherwise is to fail our country, our citizens, and your constituents. I am looking forward to graduating from Yale University next spring. I hope that I will not have to spend my summer working furiously to unseat a congressman who ignores the most serious threats to our democracy in a mistaken sense of loyalty to his political party. Please sign Representative Conyers' letter and ensure that our country is as free and democratic as it can be.

Yours sincereley,
Nathan Huttner

I think my favorite part is the threat. Truth is, I'll probably work to unseat him no matter what. Woot woot! It'll actually be a blast to be done with college and kicking some ass.

Writing for an election

2005-06-21T21:40:00.000-04:00

Of late there have been a lot of people hinting at a run for the presidency, and in NYS a run for the governor's mansion. It is rather laughable, to be honest, to see these people become such products of the nasty system of distorting candidates to fit some prewritten mold; not even compromise or accomodation of agendas, but rather complete reversals, and awkward press conferences make this new batch of presidential hopefuls as whitewashed as Rochester in the winter time.

As the times has reported of late poking good fun at Bill Frist's rendezvous with idiocy (and failure) it seems that the elections seem to come ever sooner and sooner. It almost seems fated that a democrat should be positioning himself for office, but besides the enigmatic Hillary there is very little bombast from the left. (With Daschle deposed, Harry Reid less than magnanimous, Gephardt gone, Edwards gone -- the crowned prince of the party seems to be hiding in the background -- Evan Bayh? -- or perhaps we will find it to be an empress from yesteryear?).

But the so-called right takes pot shots at itself it isn't to say something is bad about being a republican: but it certainly isn't a good time to be in the conservative public relations junketts. The persistant bickering, internal squabbling, make handsome and intellectually inept characters pop up from the shadows (yes you Mitt Romney, if you are so smart -- then certainly the direction you've been treading...farther right than anyone else in your party and you are from Massachusetts...seems to be such a calculated move it smells of bullshit; perhaps this is who you really think you are...but what shame it would be to run for president and get destroyed in your own home state).

But this new Tom Golisano/Stephen Minarik thing over in NYS is starting to be just as laughable. Golisano attacks Pataki on something as minute as wind power plants; and then gets coronated the apparent heir? If you like my use of royal terms to describe the debacle which is our present democracy: then you shall see my cynicism is ripe and ready for another season of elections...oh wait, we have another damn year before they arrive. And the horses have already come to the gates.

Mukhtaran Bibi

2005-06-19T11:28:00.000-04:00

I initially conceived of this blog as a way to discuss difficult questions that lacked easy answers, hence the title, which alludes to vague meandering and an absence of direction. But I have found that there are always issues with easy answers that demand attention, and I figure what little light I can shed on those issues can only do good. So today I write about Mukhtaran Bibi, the Pakistani woman whose struggles against an oppressive and near-sighted regime have slowly caught the attention of humanists and democrats across the world.

She was the victim of a village-council sponsored gang rape in Pakistan, which is also a death sentence for many women who cannot bear to live with the attached public shame. She chose a different path, "fighting back, opening schools for boys and girls to try and affect social change." The courage and nobility of her struggle caught the attention of western NGOs, one of which, the Asian-American Network Against the Abuse of Women, wanted to bring her to the United States on a speaking tour. The government, under orders from Pervez Musharraf, emprisoned her, blocked her visa, destroyed her passport, sent her back to her village. As of now, there will be no speaking tour of the United States, no chance for this strikingly courageous woman to speak to American men and women about the terror that faces women in her country each and every day.

Now that you know the story, if you didn't already, I have two points to make about Musharraf and how he is making a mockery of his own administration and a mockery of our government.

First, Musharraf apparently banned Mukhtaran Bibi from leaving the country because she would ba a blight on the good Pakistani name, a public relations nightmare unfairly portraying the plight of women in Pakistan. But, he swears, he's on her side. So two cases present themselves: Either Musharraf is lying about being on her side, or he has no fucking clue about how to use PR. I really don't know that much about Musharraf, but either seems plausible. The first case doesn't need much explanation, and it also doesn't take much to see how a savvy politician and supporter of Mukhtaran Bibi could have used her story to strengthen Pakistan's image in the west. Send Mukhtaran Bibi on a government-sponsored tour of the United States! Let her say everything she has to say without fear of reprisals. Create a public trust that will take revenue from ticket sales and donations, along with matching funds from world governments, including Pakistan's, to create education programs and outreach centers to prevent ritualistic gang rapes from ever happening again. I mean, it's so flipping obvious that Musharraf must be lying about his support for Mukhtaran, or be so cowed by the Islamist fundamentalists in his country that he's powerless. (And if that's the case, then he's really not much of an ally in the war on terrorism, is he?)

The second point I want to make is this. Musharraf and Pakistan are supposedly close allies in the war on "terrorism." What the hell is terrorism if it doesn't include the ritualistic gang raping of innocent women? Terrorism could be broadly defined as any violent or threatening act that promotes fear and disorder with the aim of overthrowing or blocking democracy. Gang-raping innocent women obviously fits that description. There is no democracy that does not promote the rights of all citizens, that does not protect them from brutalization and lawless, sadistic vigalantism. And there is no war on terror that does not root out and destroy that behavior. Men that would use autocratic, fictionalized Islamic law to rape a woman are no different from men who would reap destruction and kill innocent men and woman. They are cowardly, sadistic, cruel, and twisted. One of the less frequently heard criticisms of the war on terror, at least among main stream media types, is that it isn't broad enough. It doesn't understand terror's origins, its corrolaries, and, as Mukhtaran Bibi's shows, even ignores some of its most obvious and shocking manifestations. A war on terror that is literally a "war," and does not provide money for debt relief, economic development, the protection of women from vicious patriarchal regimes, is a sham. So we have a president who's allied himself with a man who ignores terrorism against his own citizens. This is our great ally in the war on terror.

My speechifying Downing Street Memo post

2005-06-17T16:14:00.000-04:00

Here's my added comment to Ted Kennedy's petition:

As a young American who believes strongly in the highest ideals of this country, it pains me to see the forces of greed, corruption, and cynical power-mongers bring our country into disrepute. Our country is founded on core principals—they define it as much as apple pie, baseball, and white picket fences. Those principals were enshrined in the Constitution by our founding fathers, where they would be protect immutibly. Yet this president has repeatedly flaunted his power, made a mockery of the Constitution, and in so doing fundamentally victimized our country. Please take this opportunity, with the evidence presented by the Downing Street Minutes staring us in the face, to defend our country. I know that you have our country's best interests at heart. Good luck.

I should be a speech writer. Or take humility classes.

Oil in Darfur—Just what the doctor ordered?

2005-06-16T10:02:00.000-04:00

According to Ken Bacon, the president of the American non-profit advocacy group Refugees International, the discovery of oil in Darfur will "lubricate the peace talks," and may lead to the end of conflict there. After all, now that there's oil, the stakes of the conflict are higher.

Wait. So now that the stakes are higher, violence will stop? That analysis strikes me as a bit muddled. Bacon's opinion rests on the past settlement in the south of Sudan, where conflict was assuaged thanks to an agreement that split oil revenues fifty-fifty between the government and rebels. The government could not exploit the oil without an agreement with the rebels in place. Bacon believes that if the sides are smart, they will come to a similar agreement. But he also admits that the government does not seem interested in any division of oil profits.

Even if both sides were operating from a rational place of game theory analysis, weighing different strategies and playing best responses, it is not clear to me that peace would be the logical outcome. After all, if the Sudanese government has the rebels on the run in Darfur, and if they can maintain that situation efficiently while drilling for oil, there is no reason to pursue peace. We do not know for how long the Sudanese government has known about the oil, and experts, including Bacon, speculate that the rebels never knew about it, and were rebelling for other reasons. So the conflict started for non-oil related reasons—both sides saw other potential gains. And now Khartoum is pursuing a scorched-earth strategy of slaughter against the rebels. While the oil could offer rebels a bargaining chip in negotiations, it also offers further incentive to Khartoum to pursue complete eradication or displacement of the rebels, a costly strategy, but one that might be justified now that there is oil at stake. If anything, oil raises the stakes in a way that enflames the forces of genocide. If this were an even conflict, it might spur negotiation and peace, but from what I've read, the situation is not even, but heavily favors Khartoum. Oil gives them a reason to pursue a final, devastating victory over the rebels, speeding them along the course of genocide.

* * * * * *

But who knows. Maybe the oil reserves will be large enough to finally picque the interest of western governments. After all, it's long been obvious that, to the Bush administration, oil wells are far more worthy of military intervention than human slaughter. And if Americans and Brits get involved, they will aim for peace, and a nice steady flow of western civilization's lifeblood.

What's the deal with Iran?

2005-06-13T10:07:00.000-04:00

On Tim Russert's Meet the Press, Rep. Curt Weldon of Pennsylvania started to decry Iran as the real reason why we're having so much trouble in Iraq. But that confuses me, so let me think through it. Iran is a Shi'ite religious state. The dominant political force in Iraq right now is the alliance between secular and Shia politicians. Sunni agitators represent the major source of the insurgency, according to most non-Weldon analysts. Here's Weldon's description of the situation:

In fact, as we talked with the Iraqi officials and we met with the speaker of the parliament, the prime minister, the defense minister, the two generals in charge of the Iraqi military, the chairman of the constitutional writing authority, we heard a common theme, that Syria may have the largest number from outside of Iraqi country, but Iran overwhelmingly has the quality behind the insurgency. And we've got to come to grips with that.

So is Iran's strategy: "Bog down American forces in Iraq with an insurgency"? That would make sense. Actually, this is making more and more sense as I think about it. You give aid to a "Sunni" insurgency in order to bloody the United States, but keeping the insurgency small enough to prevent it from ever posing a serious threat to the incoming Shi'ite government. Then, once the United States is out, you pull the plug on the insurgency in a way that makes the Shi'ite government seem more effective at protecting Iraqis than the Americans. That's a huge propaganda victory, and fuels anti-American feelings coupled with pro-Iraqi back-patting, the kind of nationalism that can really cause problems for us big super powers.

Well, if that's the Iranian strategy, then I'm impressed—that's a complex waltz of tactics to put in motion. If Rep. Weldon's blowing smoke up our collective asses in order to foment American feelings against Iran, then he's pretty jam stupid. Somehow I don't think that's what he's doing. And maybe Iran doesn't have the long-term strategy in mind that I laid out. Maybe they just enjoy screwing with us.

P.S. I'm going to be posting regularly now.

Ethical Illegality

2005-06-12T23:00:00.000-04:00

At our age, the border between legality and illegality is as blurred as ever. Between drinking underaged, getting fake ids, sharing music, there is an obvious tendency to do things that are illegal. At which point we have to question the effectiveness of these laws, and more than that, the necessity of these laws. It would seem, through simple inspection, that if our ethical minds tell us that sharing music is okay, that drinking at 19 is okay, then we ought to do it. This of course does not include abuse of anything, but if we are to be truly true to ourselves and our society, would it not seem logical for us to follow our ethical decisions in our neo-utilitarian way?

I have heard many people say that utilitarian moral philosophy has won out and as a result this is who we are. And as Nietzsche says this and Rawls and others, I believe that in terms of reality we have another player at hand. The economic-legalistic framework that stands contrary to the utilitarian perspective. As the RIAA meddles in favor of maintaining its profit share, it honors this relatively new-American concept of intellectual property. They proclaim that a person's art is owned and operated by them alone. This of course is absurd, actually, and a recent suit brought against Al Franken involving the terms 'Fair and Balanced' has proved that the kind of intellectual property rights garnered through words are in no way protected. Moreover, intellectual property rights do not protect if I am to film a piece of work (e.g. a picture of a painting is considered in itself a new artisitic creation, the MPAA then would be faulted in attacking bootleggers, and any law against bootlegging should be struck down (in the name of intellectual property rights)). If I rearrange, slightly, the notes in a song it has become in itself a new song -- if I cover the song, it can be considered my own. There are a wide array of faults in making this low form of art intellectual. Art has in the past garnered its fame because of its excellence and its originality. Art in its intellectual escape is not the popular misfits that are put out today -- we look at a Monet and not a copy of a Monet because we can say it is a Monet, and we can enjoy its aging grace. We look at new art today that excites us and label it great because it reminds us of how we feel when we look at other great works of art [and this is me simply summarizing -- and definately not bringing to justice -- the art history philosophy of Danto]. Ciara's 1,2 step, however, doesn't breed a similar kind of appreciation. It ought to fall under the category of Pleasure Property where its primary focus is inciting pleasure in the subjects. It is within us that the satisfaction is garnered and is transfered to the 'artist' through a back-channel of economic success. The reason why true phenoms don't exist in the pop music business is because in truth the RIAA and the record executives mass produce these relatively worthless talents into catchy poppy personas that we just can't get enough of listening to, but 10 years down the line wont give three shits about. Does anyone care about Juvenile? Anyone read the recent NY Times article on the decay of Limp Bizkit? The ought not be protected on anything besides the sentiment of greed that ingratiate these business maestros who commondeer our attention and our cash. When in truth the artist is undeserving of attention, they only sustain the very shifting taste and pleasure of a person, and in that regard the business of suing people shall only serve to deflect the real issue. People will continue to push the quick fix until either music becomes good again, or the RIAA stops hiding behind this unsuitable veil of intellectual property rights.

We are also confronting an equally evil danger: the parental-authoritative impulse where our elders presume to know more of life than us and wish to eliminate our sentiments legalistically. When we of course know at 19,20 and the like that the desire to drink far outweighs our personal obligation to law. It is but a farce written down on a whim to please the moral values of a select few americans [concerned parents]. The same people who unknowingly ruin school for their children through the incessant badgering of teachers and administrators have popped their little heads in order to redefine an ethical relationship on the basis of a this confuscian non-americana perspective. What is agreeable to all is that people learn to drink responsably, and more so that we do not with a signature on a piece of paper make 15 million Americans instantly criminals for having impulsive and still legitimate, assuming excess is not involved, desires. This would be the utilitarian determination. It would be Aristotlelian. It would be good. But in imposing personal beliefs on others we have lobbied for a law that stands directly in contrast to the national benefit, and personal excercise. If we said that a majority of college students did not drink, perhaps we could stand on the slippery slope and still hold our ground, but as this is not the case America just seems to be falling into denial, self-delusion and a bunch of other neurotic conditions that force it to pretend as if all is well, when it really isn't.

And thus, if we hold this truth to be evident that the moral philosophy for which we believe in is to be utilitarian: then by the goodness that is in our young hearts may we remain ethical in our lives, albeit contradictory to our backwards laws.

Prospects for a Columbian Education

2005-05-25T00:21:00.000-04:00

What does it mean to be a Columbian? In the elegant tone of PrezBo it would seem to be idealistic and cherished in opitimism. The prosperity of his words is unmistakenable: which is good to hear, and to believe in...there is someone that truly cares about this school sufficient to believe he can change this school. It is ambitious, rare, but is it Columbian?

Treading, always, between insanity and pessimism -- the Columbian ventures away from optimism an speaks, instead, of the darker dreams that lay ahead. There is a problem of expediency, efficacy and value. As we valuate ourselves, our needs, our communities needs -- we harbor restraint, more so than Bollinger, in seeing the great path to the future. Hobbled by our mindful constraints we lay to rest any image that being at Columbia is easy. It isn't. Is Bollinger an idealist, as the recent NY Times article suggests...I could see people agreeing with this, falsely, I think.

Bollinger is an academic, bright, articulate and always pensive. His work ethic is clear -- as you see the delicacy and detail in his briefs, in his speeches, in his knowledge. Perhaps my bias shows: I must say I truly respect the man. So what hasn't he done for me? Nothing. I think the problem is less him, and more the Columbian. The problem you could call it, but that suggests there is a necessary or appropriate response, which there is none for our condition. We are the skeptics. We are the purveyors of pessimism, and as such any oasis of mind is rebuked by notions of toil, challenge, difficulty and uneasiness. Is this all of Academia? Is this life? Perhaps, but Columbia accentuates it, I have noticed, it pampers itself in its lack of action, constant skepticism and driving pessimism.

What we ought to ask at this time: should we change? Should we sell-out to be a better school, or are we good enough already? These are questions we need to answer for ourselves: and they should be the questions we use to qualify our commitment to the process. If we want to be better (or at least better known) is it worth the effort, everyone's effort? If not, then let us remain as we are, it would seem to be more intelligent, than struggle in strife.

Politics and the University

2005-03-24T19:22:00.000-05:00

Columbia tends to live from controversy to controversy; it keeps things here interesting. But as much as it may seem like fun, it impresses on lowly college students the most trying national/global issues of our time: teaching assistants striking bring forth, to paraphrase Andrew Delbanco, the difficult intersection between a dying field (the humanities) and the incertainty of the job market--the battle between capitalism and academia; the question of racism railed Columbia a year ago; now we are facing a new controversy that has played itself out in newspaper articles, on tv, in editorials.

To those who may actually read this, and do not know what I speak of, I am referring to the controversy regarding "Academic Freedom" or the alleged curbing of the rights of students via intimidation and one sided presentation of topics. Columbia's President articulates this issue in a fantastic speech the other night; transcript can be found at this link .

The quesiton particular to Columbia is not Academic Freedom, but resides far closer to a discussion as contemporaneous as anything you could imagine: what is the role of academia vis-a-vis the Middle East. Embroiling the MEALAC department of Columbia into questioning its teaching has some pleasant and unpleasant aspects. It is good to know that people care enough from the outside to be guarantors of liberty. But whereas Students for Academic Freedom wear the hat of liberators, intuitively it feels like this is more of a facade than a reality.

What is the reality? What is the hope for harmony and peaceful coexistence? On both sides (Israeli and Arab) I feel an almost unambiguous no. It is the frightening position, the delicate construction that President Bollinger articulates, where you cannot win if you choose, and thus you relegate yourself to hanging from a cliff holding on as best you can before a nasty fall; there is no right thing to say without coming out as attacking a group, preferring a group to another.

Friends of mine come to me from schools far and away and ask me what is the deal with Columbia, why is it anti-semitic, why is it anti-zionist. It is a consuming case that not only challenges the integrity of my university, but that of all universities. What is the role of academia in politics? How do we escape from the political game of reciprical actions? Academia works as an ivory tower; a monastic place of inquisitive, quirky, bright minds trying to learn, trying to solve problems. Can it resolve itself to play in the dirty world of right and wrong? As ethics professors pronounce morality, the distinctly amoral aspect of the university is what has allowed it to prosper, I believe, as a champion of the whatever possible. The ever present legacy of the disputatio; knowing every side of an issue and arguing the death out of it is the basis of the University. Between universities and the free press, the great independence and objectivity of our country remains secure--until the evil head of politics enters into them, and then the hellish notion of 'I don't know' becomes all too pervasive. Because I don't know what our country would look like once we make academics too political. From the outset, it just seems scary. Perhaps I am wrong, but then again, at this moment all I feel is the notion of freedom slowly creeping away from the university, as its autonomy is it play in the court of political opinions.

Language Barrier

2005-03-18T09:07:00.000-05:00

I got to spend some time in London the is past week. Now: going on the trip in the first place made me exceptionally poor, so I became a fantastic budget traveler, taking on London while only spending about $250 over 6 days. But in doing this I got to spend most of my time walking around London, jumping into small eateries, seeing how they develop their service industry as compared to us.

The first thing I realized is how easy it was to communicate no matter what language you spoke. Blame it on the EU because this place comfortably caters to French, Spanish, German, Italian, Portuguese and what have you. Then there are places here and there that speak chinese, japanese, hindi and more! Going into a store and seeing a rather small chinese woman trying to speak Spanish to a customer made me think about those barriers we have erected in the US against language. Being multilingual is such an advantage that few seem to take advantage of. Defaulting into English seems to be too easy, and when you see all these exclusionary 'nativists' promoting English as the only language it just makes you see how incredibly unattractive the US must be to foreign travelers. Oh wait! They already are familiar with English because outside of our exceptionalistic attitude other cultures do learn multiple tongues!

Is there a moral of the story? I don't know. Perhaps just ranting. But doesn't it seem odd that other places can be so open to different people, and America is so static? Far from the center of London you can find money exchange places, or at least the values listed on windows of banks. Here you barely see anything besides the sightseeing tour bus that passes by my window every few days.

It would be nice to see us jump into the 21st century. We'll see if things change.