I'd like to talk about racism and colorism a little.
When I was young- Jr. High & early high school, I, a mixed race, light-skinned, nerdy-ass queerlet on the edge of self discovery, was also totally racist as fuck.
I believed the self-serving narrative that my mother wasn't as smart as my dad, due in part to her background. I believed that my cousins and siblings on welfare were there because their parents were lazy and irresponsible and their poverty was their fault- if they would just Do Work, they'd be all right (Oh my god, I knew jack shit about people's lives at this point). I mocked my younger black cousin for not knowing how to read. I thought that my much more black looking brothers got into fights because they were just violent, and that they could do something to stop being such targets, without having any clue what that could be (taking off their skin, maybe).
And my best friends? A big, lovely black girl who was also a geek, and constantly shunned by our white peers for not fitting their standards of beauty, and another, asian geek girl who had very similar issues. And I? I hung with them, but I looked down on them. Secretly, I was incredibly relieved that I was skinny and light, unlike my big, dark friend, because I was "pretty" and she was- I thought at the time objectively- not. It was much easier for me to gain acceptance into wider groups, and when we started high school, I completely ditched them for about a week to hang with a much "cooler" (all white) crowd.
Sure, I did bring them into that group after that, and they were accepted, but still- our friendship was much, much cooler after that. And I'd be lying if I said that I didn't do it, in part, to assuage some guilt over something I couldn't name, but knew was wrong.
What I am saying is that I, a person of color, had best friends of color, and family of color, and I still behaved like a fucking racist, alienating people I claimed to care about because I could, because I look white.
If they had called me on it at the time, THIS WOULD NOT BE RACISM. And this is the thing that drives me nuts about people saying that blacks and other PoC are racist when they point out their oppression. Talking about and identifying racial injustices and biases is not racist. Leaving them to fester is. Talking about them is the only way to dismantle them, because do you understand how fucked up it is that there's a so-called objective standard of beauty in this country that is focused around paleness, except for a few fetishists of dark skin- like, for example, my own father? How fucked up is it that everything black women do, wear, and say in this country is subject to a level of scrutiny and judgement that white women can glimpse, but don't experience? But if you want to say, "I can't be racist, my [Person you know or are related to] is a person of color, you are completely fucking wrong, and you need to examine your internal attitudes and your actions. You need to understand that just because you didn't mean to be racist doesn't mean you weren't. Maybe your offhand comment about someone looking like a drug dealer got them nailed by the authorities and frisked when they didn't do anything. Maybe you screwed somebody seriously over because you convinced other people not to take them seriously based on their color. Maybe you dismissed the people who shouted and spit at them because you didn't see it, and you don't want to make snap judgements that someone else you know is racist.
Maybe you didn't mean it. But you fucking did it, just like I did, and you need to own it, and fix it.
Tuesday, November 15, 2016
Monday, November 14, 2016
Your favorite pet theory.
The trouble, as my friend said, is that this election isn't a referendum on neo-liberalism or neo-conservativism or whatever else we wanted it to be about. No, this election is about who does and doesn't get to be an American.
And the Know-Nothings won it.
I am incredibly angry and disgusted, and all of the think-pieces in the world can't buy me love.
And the Know-Nothings won it.
I am incredibly angry and disgusted, and all of the think-pieces in the world can't buy me love.
The Soul of How We Got Here.
The Teal Deer has been silent over the past... nearly forever, for a number of reasons. But silence, as I have said numerous times, is the enemy. Silence and fear = Problemz. So...
So Ferguson. So Baltimore. So Sal's Pizzeria.
And on the other hand-- so Charleston. So the Confederate Battle Flag. So this fucking election.
And on the other hand-- so Charleston. So the Confederate Battle Flag. So this fucking election.
So to understand these things, and more specifically, the reactions of most of the black people in this country to what is happening with them, it might help to understand Reconstruction, and what happened after the slaves were emancipated, and the civil war was won by the North. Also, there's a thing we haven't really talked about, because it has a bit of middle child syndrome-- poor white people.
There's some homework to do here: I suggest Black Reconstruction in America and the Souls of Black Folk by Du Bois in particular, but you're not going to go read those right now, so let's get into it.
White and Poor is a distinct racial identity, and it's time to admit it. White and Poor is an identity that is functionally powerless, but which possess the possibility-- the hope-- of becoming powerful one day, if they work hard enough and do all the right things. White and Poor couldn't vote before the civil war, because the planters had property requirements at the polling place. White and Poor in the south were stuck in an untenable position: the employer class had slaves, so they were only hiring whites to do things like help keep the slaves docile-- overseers, police, bounty hunters. If you could get a bit of land, you could do some sustenance farming, but competition was a laugh. You might be able to get lucky and move into the planter class, but that was a long shot, like the jackpot on the slot machine.
Let's be clear-- I'm not saying that the situation of the poor white is the same as, or comparable to, chattel slavery. But this doesn't mean that we should never talk about the situation of the poor white. And right now, we have to, because it is the reality that informs Dylan Roof, and informs white folks in the South who think that the confederate battle flag is their heritage, and informs white folks who don't get why we can't just move on.
The problem is that white culture, particularly southern, white, poor culture, has been for too long linked and bound with racism, with ignorance, with a certain down home wholesomeness that looks nice on the surface but really equates ignorance with honesty by demonizing intellectualism. "Black Culture"(tm, because seriously, there isn't just one) has something similar, in point of fact; the difference is that you can't really buy your way out of it as a black person, because to be black, regardless of personal wealth, is to be associated with the poor and criminal.
The problem of the poor white has a lot on common with the problem of the mulatto: but it is not the ability to pass for "a white person," it is the ability to pass for rich, or at least, the ability to past for someone who could, legitimately, have wealth.
Now, I can already hear people saying, "but Rabbit, you're making it about class, not race, and that's simplistic." My argument is that the two cannot be separated in America (I can't speak for other nations), and that race fundamentally defines an economic class. The construction of the white race in America was an economic function, but it was also a lie: for the White Property Owner was not about to share anything but a thin label with the white person who didn't own property. Not even the vote, for a very long time.
Anyway, here is a white person, who does a really excellent job of illustrating this here.
What do I think this all means? I think it means that we need to stop shutting down white people, especially poor white people, when they want to talk about race and class, and about themselves in relation to it. I think we need to point out that white people need to talk amongst themselves about it, and also to people of color constructively. But we really, really have to stop treating marginalized white people as if they are invisible, and as if they don't exist. The great trick of reconstruction was playing on the fear of the poor white that black people would be raised above them, and they would be at the very bottom of the pile, and we can see this in the results of this election. One of the first and immediate consequences is that like it or not, white people are now a group for which the actions of one reflect on the whole. The rest of us can relate, and understand exactly how shitty and insulting it is. But it is the new reality, and it's a bad one.
Now, what I am NOT saying here is that black people need to be patient and complacent when we are being actively and physically assaulted and attacked by white people, poor or not, doing the dirty work of this kind of enforcement of white supremacy. Fuck no. What I am saying is that a culture in which, to a white person, being called a racist is the worst, most unthinkable insult, while actually being racist in effect and result is not even noticed is the opposite of useful. And further, we're seeing, in effect, that if white people with no positive identity to adhere to are continually denied one, they'll stop seeing the bad things associated with the negative identity as bad. So I'd expect the white supremacy to get worse, going forward- and people of color, people who aren't white in general- we are not going to be the ones who are going to be able to stop it.
There's some homework to do here: I suggest Black Reconstruction in America and the Souls of Black Folk by Du Bois in particular, but you're not going to go read those right now, so let's get into it.
White and Poor is a distinct racial identity, and it's time to admit it. White and Poor is an identity that is functionally powerless, but which possess the possibility-- the hope-- of becoming powerful one day, if they work hard enough and do all the right things. White and Poor couldn't vote before the civil war, because the planters had property requirements at the polling place. White and Poor in the south were stuck in an untenable position: the employer class had slaves, so they were only hiring whites to do things like help keep the slaves docile-- overseers, police, bounty hunters. If you could get a bit of land, you could do some sustenance farming, but competition was a laugh. You might be able to get lucky and move into the planter class, but that was a long shot, like the jackpot on the slot machine.
Let's be clear-- I'm not saying that the situation of the poor white is the same as, or comparable to, chattel slavery. But this doesn't mean that we should never talk about the situation of the poor white. And right now, we have to, because it is the reality that informs Dylan Roof, and informs white folks in the South who think that the confederate battle flag is their heritage, and informs white folks who don't get why we can't just move on.
The problem is that white culture, particularly southern, white, poor culture, has been for too long linked and bound with racism, with ignorance, with a certain down home wholesomeness that looks nice on the surface but really equates ignorance with honesty by demonizing intellectualism. "Black Culture"(tm, because seriously, there isn't just one) has something similar, in point of fact; the difference is that you can't really buy your way out of it as a black person, because to be black, regardless of personal wealth, is to be associated with the poor and criminal.
The problem of the poor white has a lot on common with the problem of the mulatto: but it is not the ability to pass for "a white person," it is the ability to pass for rich, or at least, the ability to past for someone who could, legitimately, have wealth.
Now, I can already hear people saying, "but Rabbit, you're making it about class, not race, and that's simplistic." My argument is that the two cannot be separated in America (I can't speak for other nations), and that race fundamentally defines an economic class. The construction of the white race in America was an economic function, but it was also a lie: for the White Property Owner was not about to share anything but a thin label with the white person who didn't own property. Not even the vote, for a very long time.
Anyway, here is a white person, who does a really excellent job of illustrating this here.
What do I think this all means? I think it means that we need to stop shutting down white people, especially poor white people, when they want to talk about race and class, and about themselves in relation to it. I think we need to point out that white people need to talk amongst themselves about it, and also to people of color constructively. But we really, really have to stop treating marginalized white people as if they are invisible, and as if they don't exist. The great trick of reconstruction was playing on the fear of the poor white that black people would be raised above them, and they would be at the very bottom of the pile, and we can see this in the results of this election. One of the first and immediate consequences is that like it or not, white people are now a group for which the actions of one reflect on the whole. The rest of us can relate, and understand exactly how shitty and insulting it is. But it is the new reality, and it's a bad one.
Now, what I am NOT saying here is that black people need to be patient and complacent when we are being actively and physically assaulted and attacked by white people, poor or not, doing the dirty work of this kind of enforcement of white supremacy. Fuck no. What I am saying is that a culture in which, to a white person, being called a racist is the worst, most unthinkable insult, while actually being racist in effect and result is not even noticed is the opposite of useful. And further, we're seeing, in effect, that if white people with no positive identity to adhere to are continually denied one, they'll stop seeing the bad things associated with the negative identity as bad. So I'd expect the white supremacy to get worse, going forward- and people of color, people who aren't white in general- we are not going to be the ones who are going to be able to stop it.
Thursday, August 30, 2012
In Which Kainenchen Is Naive About Political Realities.
This morning, as I have the day off to pack for DragonCon, I've been watching Under African Skies, a documentary about the making of the Graceland Album. And the most interesting thing to me is that, at the time the rhythms were recorded, the ANC protested it, because the UN had declared a cultural boycott of South Africa. And it made sense, from a degree, to have this boycott: South Africa was still under apartheid, and political wisdom was that the country ought to be shunned, so that no one in the world could be seen to support Apartheid, in any sense- economically, militarily, or culturally.
Thing is, this is the complete and utter wrong way to go about dealing with a nation which is abusing its citizens: to lock them away from the rest of the world, in the cesspit of their abuse. It's like saying that a person being beaten by their spouse should be shunned along with said spouse, and the two of them should be locked away until the spouse stops the violence. Isolation, I think, is the exact opposite of what you should want for an oppressed country- especially when they have such amazingness to offer, musically, artistically, and yes.
I was 6 years old when Graceland: The African Concert aired. My parents taped it, and I still have that tape to this day. What the people protesting the Graceland Album and the Concert didn't see, and couldn't see, was that little kids of all races, in all kinds of places would see this, and know "Bring Back Nelson Mandela," and about Apartheid at all, and about this music and the people who make it, rather than this music being locked away behind a curtain of evil. Music, and art, and literature help people relate to others. It's one thing to know, "yeah, they have no rights, and no citizenship, and no anything else- that's sad," and another to know, "OMG, these people who make these things that I love, are being treated this way."
When Ladysmith Black Mambazo came to New York to record with Paul Simon, they wanted to go to Central Park, and asked where they could get a permit. They had no idea that you didn't need a permit to go places. And it's frigging valuable, to learn something like that, that the way things are where you are, a culture of fear and terror aren't the way it is everywhere, or the way it has to be. It doesn't change anything right at that moment, but it never goes away, knowing that kind of thing.
Paul Simon was accused of cultural appropriation: of exploiting these South African musicians for his own profit. He argued, in return, that it was a collaboration. He and the artists he worked with created a hybrid, something that hadn't existed before, and showed they could work together and make an amazing, explosive album. And in the long run, I think I agree with him. He did the right thing, and so did the artists who worked with him. It's all well and good for people of color to make art for other people of color, but it's not... satisfying, not to me anyway, to be a colored person doing colored things in a colored corner. Maybe it's being mixed race, I want to share art from all of my various backgrounds with people from each of those. And I am not really jazzed hearing fear and hesitancy from my white friends and loved ones, because they're so afraid of messing something up, they don't want to engage with anything outside of their familiar.
And maybe that's their own problem, but I've always found that it's better, and more satisfying, to just roll with it, assume good intent, and be okay.
In the meantime, Miriam Makeba's voice still nearly makes me cry, after all these years. Nkosi Sikileli Africa... just yeah.
Thing is, this is the complete and utter wrong way to go about dealing with a nation which is abusing its citizens: to lock them away from the rest of the world, in the cesspit of their abuse. It's like saying that a person being beaten by their spouse should be shunned along with said spouse, and the two of them should be locked away until the spouse stops the violence. Isolation, I think, is the exact opposite of what you should want for an oppressed country- especially when they have such amazingness to offer, musically, artistically, and yes.
I was 6 years old when Graceland: The African Concert aired. My parents taped it, and I still have that tape to this day. What the people protesting the Graceland Album and the Concert didn't see, and couldn't see, was that little kids of all races, in all kinds of places would see this, and know "Bring Back Nelson Mandela," and about Apartheid at all, and about this music and the people who make it, rather than this music being locked away behind a curtain of evil. Music, and art, and literature help people relate to others. It's one thing to know, "yeah, they have no rights, and no citizenship, and no anything else- that's sad," and another to know, "OMG, these people who make these things that I love, are being treated this way."
When Ladysmith Black Mambazo came to New York to record with Paul Simon, they wanted to go to Central Park, and asked where they could get a permit. They had no idea that you didn't need a permit to go places. And it's frigging valuable, to learn something like that, that the way things are where you are, a culture of fear and terror aren't the way it is everywhere, or the way it has to be. It doesn't change anything right at that moment, but it never goes away, knowing that kind of thing.
Paul Simon was accused of cultural appropriation: of exploiting these South African musicians for his own profit. He argued, in return, that it was a collaboration. He and the artists he worked with created a hybrid, something that hadn't existed before, and showed they could work together and make an amazing, explosive album. And in the long run, I think I agree with him. He did the right thing, and so did the artists who worked with him. It's all well and good for people of color to make art for other people of color, but it's not... satisfying, not to me anyway, to be a colored person doing colored things in a colored corner. Maybe it's being mixed race, I want to share art from all of my various backgrounds with people from each of those. And I am not really jazzed hearing fear and hesitancy from my white friends and loved ones, because they're so afraid of messing something up, they don't want to engage with anything outside of their familiar.
And maybe that's their own problem, but I've always found that it's better, and more satisfying, to just roll with it, assume good intent, and be okay.
In the meantime, Miriam Makeba's voice still nearly makes me cry, after all these years. Nkosi Sikileli Africa... just yeah.
Tuesday, August 21, 2012
Starting on Hard Mode.
So, this has been the week of A Senate guy running in Missouri saying things about rape that are wrong, and The American Family Association backing him up on the wrong, and him making an apology that didn't make it better.
So I says to myself, I says, "Kainenchen, this is it. Can you talk about this without losing your shit, and going off the deep end of explosion and the like?"
So, here I am, and we're going to talk about it, and yes.
There's a lot here to talk about, you see. The misconceptions and what exactly is wrong with what Akin said, why he said it, the greater issues of rape, and the greater issues of abortion. Let's start with rape, in the interest of Silence is Not So Good, and rape being one of those things where silence is still again (though less than it was), the status quo.
I knew that when Todd Akin said, "legitimate rape", he was referring to violent, forcible rape. I do not know the specific image in his head, but I can guess, and I know what image this evokes in the part of my brain what is tapped into the conventional wisdom. Rape by a stranger. by a degenerate in a back-alley or a skeever in a bar after a girl's had a few too many. The kind that dominates the popular idea of rape, but is actually fairly rare.
And you know what? I know at least two people, personally, who got pregnant from exactly that kind of rape.
As for the rest of the kinds of rape out there... Here, have some statistics from RAINN.
I know a lot of people who have been sexually assaulted or raped. As do you. The number for women is 1 in 6. Fortunately, the numbers of people being raped have dropped dramatically since 1993. Awareness is a Thing. Talking about it is important. So that you who have been raped/assaulted know you're not alone, and those of you who think you don't know anyone who has know that well... you haven't been told about it.
And the same thing, frankly, about abortion.
On abortion, I'll step away from statistics a moment, because I don't actually want to talk about the facts about who, in abstract, has them, who doesn't, and why. I want to talk about me, and about belief. Specifically, things one believes about oneself. Like "I would never, ever, for any reason have an abortion."
Which is something I believed about myself, up until the moment I didn't any more.
To spoil the ending, I didn't get pregnant the time in question, so I didn't have to make the choice. But you see, the sex that made me worry about this was not sex I had wanted to have. The only thing that stopped the sex in question from being rape was a final, last minute "Okay" that came out of my mouth because I didn't want my friend, who was doing this to me, who was not hearing that I didn't want to do this, to be a rapist, and I didn't have the wherewithal to fight him or get angry. So I put up with it, and when it was over, he left, not realising why I was upset.
(Something to remember, folks: Trust is very, very delicate. If someone betrays what they want to give into you, you may have won your way this once, but there's a very good chance you've lost something much more important. I will never trust this particular person again, even if we still, on the surface, remain friends.)
The circumstances surrounding what happened, however, were insignificant next to the circumstances of his life and mine at the time. So when I missed the first period after this, I about panicked. If I were pregnant, this would be devastating to way, way too many people, and I would not be in any condition to raise it, besides. And at that point, I knew that if I _were_ pregnant, in this circumstance, I would have the abortion. I couldn't ever give up a child for adoption... carrying a child to term would be a commitment to raise it, for me. But I couldn't have it, not like this. And the realization made me incredibly sick. But.
The lesson here, as I learned it during the couple of weeks before my period finally came, is that you don't know what deeply held beliefs and values you will sacrifice when and until you are faced with the decision. Yes, there's always the, "I hope you never will be!" and that's important, and I am not saying that you can't speak to things you haven't experienced. But please be careful, when passing judgement on something like abortion, or what you'd do if someone tried to rape you, or whether you'd leave an abusive relationship/family situation, that you don't make speculations that diminish the experiences of those who actually have gone through these things, and did not make the choice that you- let's face it- hope you would make. And frankly, the people I know who did make the choice to keep a child, who fought off the rapist and stopped them, who called the police, who left their abuser- those aren't the people I've seen judging their opposite numbers.
And this is the thing that I would like Todd Akin to understand, when he talks about punishing the rapists instead of the unintended children of rape. It isn't that easy (I am not here getting into the difficulties of rape prosecution, though they're manifold), nor that cut and dried. Even when it is rape, there's no talking here about the punishment of the women who have abortions: that they inflict on themselves, for making the decision, that they get from abortion advocates who are terrified that a woman who regrets it (or doesn't regret it, but is still broken up and upset) will look bad politically, from anti-abortion activists who now believe that the woman in question is an evil murderer, whatever her circumstances. And that's a silence that isn't cool. People need support, and to know that there are resources there for them, and my personal feeling on it is that a woman who has chosen to have an abortion has done the right thing, because actually going through with it, as I know from many women who have, is not easy. If you do it, it is because having it- or in some cases, anyone knowing that you were pregnant at the time- needed to not happen. Right then. In that instance. With no judgement on what happens in the future.
There are a lot of stories like mine, a number of which end in making the hard choice one way or another, and a number of which I know, but they're not mine to tell here. And there's a lot of documentation of women, even, who are violently opposed to abortion, even as they're on the table, even after the fact. Doublethink is a real thing, as is, "my situation is different" syndrome.
As we have these conversations, especially lawmakers who seem to have, for various reasons, to make legal decisions about medical and personal things, I sincerely hope we can keep these things in mind.
So I says to myself, I says, "Kainenchen, this is it. Can you talk about this without losing your shit, and going off the deep end of explosion and the like?"
So, here I am, and we're going to talk about it, and yes.
There's a lot here to talk about, you see. The misconceptions and what exactly is wrong with what Akin said, why he said it, the greater issues of rape, and the greater issues of abortion. Let's start with rape, in the interest of Silence is Not So Good, and rape being one of those things where silence is still again (though less than it was), the status quo.
I knew that when Todd Akin said, "legitimate rape", he was referring to violent, forcible rape. I do not know the specific image in his head, but I can guess, and I know what image this evokes in the part of my brain what is tapped into the conventional wisdom. Rape by a stranger. by a degenerate in a back-alley or a skeever in a bar after a girl's had a few too many. The kind that dominates the popular idea of rape, but is actually fairly rare.
And you know what? I know at least two people, personally, who got pregnant from exactly that kind of rape.
As for the rest of the kinds of rape out there... Here, have some statistics from RAINN.
I know a lot of people who have been sexually assaulted or raped. As do you. The number for women is 1 in 6. Fortunately, the numbers of people being raped have dropped dramatically since 1993. Awareness is a Thing. Talking about it is important. So that you who have been raped/assaulted know you're not alone, and those of you who think you don't know anyone who has know that well... you haven't been told about it.
And the same thing, frankly, about abortion.
On abortion, I'll step away from statistics a moment, because I don't actually want to talk about the facts about who, in abstract, has them, who doesn't, and why. I want to talk about me, and about belief. Specifically, things one believes about oneself. Like "I would never, ever, for any reason have an abortion."
Which is something I believed about myself, up until the moment I didn't any more.
To spoil the ending, I didn't get pregnant the time in question, so I didn't have to make the choice. But you see, the sex that made me worry about this was not sex I had wanted to have. The only thing that stopped the sex in question from being rape was a final, last minute "Okay" that came out of my mouth because I didn't want my friend, who was doing this to me, who was not hearing that I didn't want to do this, to be a rapist, and I didn't have the wherewithal to fight him or get angry. So I put up with it, and when it was over, he left, not realising why I was upset.
(Something to remember, folks: Trust is very, very delicate. If someone betrays what they want to give into you, you may have won your way this once, but there's a very good chance you've lost something much more important. I will never trust this particular person again, even if we still, on the surface, remain friends.)
The circumstances surrounding what happened, however, were insignificant next to the circumstances of his life and mine at the time. So when I missed the first period after this, I about panicked. If I were pregnant, this would be devastating to way, way too many people, and I would not be in any condition to raise it, besides. And at that point, I knew that if I _were_ pregnant, in this circumstance, I would have the abortion. I couldn't ever give up a child for adoption... carrying a child to term would be a commitment to raise it, for me. But I couldn't have it, not like this. And the realization made me incredibly sick. But.
The lesson here, as I learned it during the couple of weeks before my period finally came, is that you don't know what deeply held beliefs and values you will sacrifice when and until you are faced with the decision. Yes, there's always the, "I hope you never will be!" and that's important, and I am not saying that you can't speak to things you haven't experienced. But please be careful, when passing judgement on something like abortion, or what you'd do if someone tried to rape you, or whether you'd leave an abusive relationship/family situation, that you don't make speculations that diminish the experiences of those who actually have gone through these things, and did not make the choice that you- let's face it- hope you would make. And frankly, the people I know who did make the choice to keep a child, who fought off the rapist and stopped them, who called the police, who left their abuser- those aren't the people I've seen judging their opposite numbers.
And this is the thing that I would like Todd Akin to understand, when he talks about punishing the rapists instead of the unintended children of rape. It isn't that easy (I am not here getting into the difficulties of rape prosecution, though they're manifold), nor that cut and dried. Even when it is rape, there's no talking here about the punishment of the women who have abortions: that they inflict on themselves, for making the decision, that they get from abortion advocates who are terrified that a woman who regrets it (or doesn't regret it, but is still broken up and upset) will look bad politically, from anti-abortion activists who now believe that the woman in question is an evil murderer, whatever her circumstances. And that's a silence that isn't cool. People need support, and to know that there are resources there for them, and my personal feeling on it is that a woman who has chosen to have an abortion has done the right thing, because actually going through with it, as I know from many women who have, is not easy. If you do it, it is because having it- or in some cases, anyone knowing that you were pregnant at the time- needed to not happen. Right then. In that instance. With no judgement on what happens in the future.
There are a lot of stories like mine, a number of which end in making the hard choice one way or another, and a number of which I know, but they're not mine to tell here. And there's a lot of documentation of women, even, who are violently opposed to abortion, even as they're on the table, even after the fact. Doublethink is a real thing, as is, "my situation is different" syndrome.
As we have these conversations, especially lawmakers who seem to have, for various reasons, to make legal decisions about medical and personal things, I sincerely hope we can keep these things in mind.
Friday, August 10, 2012
Speak Up, Speak Often.
Who knows if I'll stick to this, but I think it's time to dust the cobwebs off this place, square up, and start talking again.
Why? Because there's a few awesome people talking about anything: religion, politics, feminism, thinking, action, etc- and a whole hell of a lot of bullshit.
So, I think I am doing no one any favors by staying silent. In fact, staying silent is the worst thing I could do. Well, next worst. I'll get to that in a second. Like right now, actually.
There's gonna be some new rules for this blog. Specifically, I am making a pledge, right now, to avoid vitriol, fulmination, and other forms of outright nastiness. This is not going to be easy for me. But the only way to have the kind of conversation I want to have is to avoid the pitfalls of the kind I don't. And adding to the bullshit kind of discourse is, indeed, worse than silence, though not much.
Second, I am going to stop hiding this thing, and will post publicly when I update. You, the reader, can feel free to ignore it, and not be a Reader. I don't anticipate needing to have rules about moderation and the like, we'll build that bridge as we come to it.
Third, I don't want you to think that I won't get angry. I will, and I'll let you know when I am. Because one of the important things about discourse is that Having Anger is Okay. It's what you do with it before, during, and after that's important.
Fourth, some rules about the discourse here. For those inclined to reply to comments with, "Entitled to Opinions" and "Hate anyone who disagrees with you" a lot, if I hear anything at all. To these points:
-On the subject of Opinion, please be sure to verify if a statement is, in fact, Opinion or Judgement. Everyone has opinions, but you have to earn the right to make a Judgement. That's why there's a whole profession (hint: called Judges), that do that shit. I will make judgements from time to time. So will you. We should remember that no, we're not entitled to them, and expressing them _might_, in fact, be wrong.
-This is not gonna be a forum for, "well, it's just my opinion." If you want to discuss things here, it'd best be because you're okay with having opinions, or other positions, questioned, argued with, poked at, and scrutinized. What I care about isn't what you think or believe, but why. And if you don't have at least _an_ answer for why, and if you're not prepared to discuss it, then this is probably not the place for you.
Anyway. That's the gist. Like I said, we'll see what happens.
Why? Because there's a few awesome people talking about anything: religion, politics, feminism, thinking, action, etc- and a whole hell of a lot of bullshit.
So, I think I am doing no one any favors by staying silent. In fact, staying silent is the worst thing I could do. Well, next worst. I'll get to that in a second. Like right now, actually.
There's gonna be some new rules for this blog. Specifically, I am making a pledge, right now, to avoid vitriol, fulmination, and other forms of outright nastiness. This is not going to be easy for me. But the only way to have the kind of conversation I want to have is to avoid the pitfalls of the kind I don't. And adding to the bullshit kind of discourse is, indeed, worse than silence, though not much.
Second, I am going to stop hiding this thing, and will post publicly when I update. You, the reader, can feel free to ignore it, and not be a Reader. I don't anticipate needing to have rules about moderation and the like, we'll build that bridge as we come to it.
Third, I don't want you to think that I won't get angry. I will, and I'll let you know when I am. Because one of the important things about discourse is that Having Anger is Okay. It's what you do with it before, during, and after that's important.
Fourth, some rules about the discourse here. For those inclined to reply to comments with, "Entitled to Opinions" and "Hate anyone who disagrees with you" a lot, if I hear anything at all. To these points:
-On the subject of Opinion, please be sure to verify if a statement is, in fact, Opinion or Judgement. Everyone has opinions, but you have to earn the right to make a Judgement. That's why there's a whole profession (hint: called Judges), that do that shit. I will make judgements from time to time. So will you. We should remember that no, we're not entitled to them, and expressing them _might_, in fact, be wrong.
-This is not gonna be a forum for, "well, it's just my opinion." If you want to discuss things here, it'd best be because you're okay with having opinions, or other positions, questioned, argued with, poked at, and scrutinized. What I care about isn't what you think or believe, but why. And if you don't have at least _an_ answer for why, and if you're not prepared to discuss it, then this is probably not the place for you.
Anyway. That's the gist. Like I said, we'll see what happens.
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
Occupy Occupy Occupy.
Here's a roundup of Occupy Links I might want at some point later:
The Revolution, live.
On the subject of The Books.
The Feed, updating.
You don't really have to ask whether or not I am in support of this whole thing, do you? When I have kids, I want them to know that this happened, and that I was for it. I'll probably be ashamed, on some levels, that I wasn't there, in zucotti park, with everyone else.
Trinity Church's article.
Now I go to do some thinking.
The Revolution, live.
On the subject of The Books.
The Feed, updating.
You don't really have to ask whether or not I am in support of this whole thing, do you? When I have kids, I want them to know that this happened, and that I was for it. I'll probably be ashamed, on some levels, that I wasn't there, in zucotti park, with everyone else.
Trinity Church's article.
Now I go to do some thinking.
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
Important Reminders
Why People Don't Change Their Minds, Facts or Not: a study.
Important for me to remember, and everyone.
Important for me to remember, and everyone.
Friday, October 14, 2011
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
Occupied America Welcomes You.
These links are stolen from this post, and well... watch them. I think they're Good.
And
And Some Curious and Oh yeah, Apathy's always been a problem! Scenarios and Some predictable scoffing at the freaking out by the Super-Rich over being called on their bullshit.
And now, I tell you why I don't mind that the #OccupyWallStreet (et al) movement doesn't seem to have a coherent message. You see, neither has the Left, for any real amount of time now. Even through the Obama campaign, the message was pretty much, "Something's Gotta happen now/Something's Gotta Give," with no indication of what that Something ought to be. Because we all had different ideas, and part of the character of the left is at least trying to respect the differences in those ideas, at least as far as what we ought to focus on.
The problem with that, while it is ideologically correct, is that it makes it damn hard to have anything to sink your teeth into, and get excited about.
Enter #OccupyWallStreet, the Left-in-Microcosm: confused, unfocused, desperate, eager, willing to be loud, and ultimately wanting it to be over so we can go home and get back to doing things we'll enjoy. The point isn't to be the message. It's to hold up the problem so that the responses will generate something we can stand behind, and shout to the rooftops. It's a roundabout way to get at the generation of a message, but has anything else worked? And if this doesn't work, it's just one more try, and at least a wonderfully visible one.
For my part, I'll continue to send pizza and bagels to the protesters, and hope it continues-- at least, until it's no longer needed.
And
And Some Curious and Oh yeah, Apathy's always been a problem! Scenarios and Some predictable scoffing at the freaking out by the Super-Rich over being called on their bullshit.
And now, I tell you why I don't mind that the #OccupyWallStreet (et al) movement doesn't seem to have a coherent message. You see, neither has the Left, for any real amount of time now. Even through the Obama campaign, the message was pretty much, "Something's Gotta happen now/Something's Gotta Give," with no indication of what that Something ought to be. Because we all had different ideas, and part of the character of the left is at least trying to respect the differences in those ideas, at least as far as what we ought to focus on.
The problem with that, while it is ideologically correct, is that it makes it damn hard to have anything to sink your teeth into, and get excited about.
Enter #OccupyWallStreet, the Left-in-Microcosm: confused, unfocused, desperate, eager, willing to be loud, and ultimately wanting it to be over so we can go home and get back to doing things we'll enjoy. The point isn't to be the message. It's to hold up the problem so that the responses will generate something we can stand behind, and shout to the rooftops. It's a roundabout way to get at the generation of a message, but has anything else worked? And if this doesn't work, it's just one more try, and at least a wonderfully visible one.
For my part, I'll continue to send pizza and bagels to the protesters, and hope it continues-- at least, until it's no longer needed.
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
On Plutocracy, Anarchy, and bitterness.
If Socialist is going to be a bad word, I want Objectivist to be a word at least as bad. Objectivist and Plutocrat should be synonymous with Anarchist, in the way that I see conservative blogs conflating Socialism and Fascism. Yeah, Dichotomy. Yeah, how the worm turns. But look here-- we have right-wingers shredding government past the point of Monarchy-- who wants monarchs? No one. And they're managing to skirt around Fascism even, except in the case of religious politics, because a non-secular government can't help it. One Faith = One Party is kind of... accidentally mandatory. But that's another shade of teal deer.
I am here today because I am bitter as all hell. The tear-down of government-- as a tyrant, as restrictive, as evil and thieving-- angers me deeply. Who is making this argument? Would-be Plutocrats who are convincing those of us who are a little-bit successful that the Government is trying to rule and run our lives for us.
No, not ours. Yours. Why? Because you can afford to run our lives, and Government is there to stop you. So what do you do? You forment near-anarchy, because you know you'll be able to buy your way out of it. You're plugging for the pure economic tyranny of the USSR, except instead of the State, wealth and the Plutocrat will be revered. You are holding up as an idol the spectre of "Success".
I don't think that word means what you want us to think it means.
Anyway. I need to make another post here-- a personal link list of Andelku's posts about The Hedgehog.
You'll understand when you see.
I am here today because I am bitter as all hell. The tear-down of government-- as a tyrant, as restrictive, as evil and thieving-- angers me deeply. Who is making this argument? Would-be Plutocrats who are convincing those of us who are a little-bit successful that the Government is trying to rule and run our lives for us.
No, not ours. Yours. Why? Because you can afford to run our lives, and Government is there to stop you. So what do you do? You forment near-anarchy, because you know you'll be able to buy your way out of it. You're plugging for the pure economic tyranny of the USSR, except instead of the State, wealth and the Plutocrat will be revered. You are holding up as an idol the spectre of "Success".
I don't think that word means what you want us to think it means.
Anyway. I need to make another post here-- a personal link list of Andelku's posts about The Hedgehog.
You'll understand when you see.
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
And the books were in our heads.
So, on the subject of this, following hard upon this, I have the following to say:
As it so happens, I lament the loss of old bookstores, but by god, I am not going to spit in the face of progress to do it, or for crying out loud, call progress and advancement Fascist. Protecting an industry is wrong when it's car companies clinging to gasoline instead of more efficient engines for aesthetic reasons, and it's wrong when its publishers who want to make a mint on mass market hardcovers. Will the books go away? No. Will they change? Yes, very probably. Is the Kindle the best medium for e-reading? Not necessarily, but that is why we have anti-trust and competition law, and other things to prevent monopoly.
I could say more, and make this truly tl;dr, but I think that I will have said what I mean, now.
As it so happens, I lament the loss of old bookstores, but by god, I am not going to spit in the face of progress to do it, or for crying out loud, call progress and advancement Fascist. Protecting an industry is wrong when it's car companies clinging to gasoline instead of more efficient engines for aesthetic reasons, and it's wrong when its publishers who want to make a mint on mass market hardcovers. Will the books go away? No. Will they change? Yes, very probably. Is the Kindle the best medium for e-reading? Not necessarily, but that is why we have anti-trust and competition law, and other things to prevent monopoly.
I could say more, and make this truly tl;dr, but I think that I will have said what I mean, now.
Friday, September 26, 2008
Reacharound.
I'm not sure I can, in good faith, continue to call this a moderate blog. In spite of the fact that I am in agreement with the House Republicans on /their/ version of the economic bailout package in general-- one which requires wallstreet use private capital to inject liquidity into the market. I'm wary about the tax law easing part of it, but I'd have to look more closely at the details.
But the thing of it is, my opinions are becoming a lot more socialist than I had expected would ever happen. I believe that a society which required debt to function is fundamentally flawed, and this kind of thing is pretty much bound to happen. And I'm rather not convinced that such a collapse is a bad thing. So I'm rather biased here.
Frankly, I'd rather slice my own damn bread.
But the thing of it is, my opinions are becoming a lot more socialist than I had expected would ever happen. I believe that a society which required debt to function is fundamentally flawed, and this kind of thing is pretty much bound to happen. And I'm rather not convinced that such a collapse is a bad thing. So I'm rather biased here.
Frankly, I'd rather slice my own damn bread.
Thursday, August 28, 2008
Sometimes, there are certain restrictions which allow freedom. The Bill of Rights is this kind of restriction-- something which restricts the right of others to restrict.
Here is something which talks about this in the context of teh internets:
I believe this in the context of most things, and Religion in particular-- and I apologise if I'm harping on this one-- it is only in a secular state that the practise of religion is truly free. I can, in my very bizarre and personal-faithy way, not interfere with the practise of the Catholic mass or the Pentacostal anything or the Muslim prayers or any of those things, by law. And I love listening to the bells of the church across the street of a Sunday, as much as I'd like to hear the Muzzein call to prayer to mosques of a dusk, whilst reading my tarot cards on a café table. I realise that it is unthinkable to certain religions that anyone else might have answers, but it is imperative that that lack of ability to comprehend that kind of diversity not in fact squelch the same. Because while individuals may believe that They Know Truth, the segments that agree on said Truth are by far smaller than society as a whole, and are trumped thereby.
Here is something which talks about this in the context of teh internets:
I believe this in the context of most things, and Religion in particular-- and I apologise if I'm harping on this one-- it is only in a secular state that the practise of religion is truly free. I can, in my very bizarre and personal-faithy way, not interfere with the practise of the Catholic mass or the Pentacostal anything or the Muslim prayers or any of those things, by law. And I love listening to the bells of the church across the street of a Sunday, as much as I'd like to hear the Muzzein call to prayer to mosques of a dusk, whilst reading my tarot cards on a café table. I realise that it is unthinkable to certain religions that anyone else might have answers, but it is imperative that that lack of ability to comprehend that kind of diversity not in fact squelch the same. Because while individuals may believe that They Know Truth, the segments that agree on said Truth are by far smaller than society as a whole, and are trumped thereby.
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
Rulebreaking: The Obvious.
What the shits is this?
Obviously, Barak Obama wants to lose now. Obviously, our government is now more corrupt than it was when Nixon was in office. Obviously, those sitting in government are behaving like the old Roman Senators, or the members of the First Republic, and they don't give a shit about what happens to this country a hundred years from now, as long as they save their asses now.
I hate the word 'obviously', and 'clearly' is just as bad. They're words that one uses to tell you that the emperor has clothes, really. But this... not only does the emperor have no clothes, he is shitting in the street.
But there are times, as our constitution says, when it is not only the right but the responsibility of the people to kick the ass of the administration. If that time isn't now, I fear it will be soon. And I'll tell you, I am being overcome by an urge I would never have had before-- the urge to buy a firearm and keep it in my house.
Because I can.
While I can.
Obviously, Barak Obama wants to lose now. Obviously, our government is now more corrupt than it was when Nixon was in office. Obviously, those sitting in government are behaving like the old Roman Senators, or the members of the First Republic, and they don't give a shit about what happens to this country a hundred years from now, as long as they save their asses now.
I hate the word 'obviously', and 'clearly' is just as bad. They're words that one uses to tell you that the emperor has clothes, really. But this... not only does the emperor have no clothes, he is shitting in the street.
But there are times, as our constitution says, when it is not only the right but the responsibility of the people to kick the ass of the administration. If that time isn't now, I fear it will be soon. And I'll tell you, I am being overcome by an urge I would never have had before-- the urge to buy a firearm and keep it in my house.
Because I can.
While I can.
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
Dichotomy
I would like to see an Obama/McCain ticket. A lot. If McCain weren't a social idiot, in a lot of ways. But what is necessary is a true bipartisan ticket, and a true bipartisan office.
That's all I have to say.
That's all I have to say.
Thursday, May 8, 2008
Semi-Absolutism
Hillary Clinton did not just refer to nuclear deterrence as, "What Worked During the Cold War."
I think that it is abundantly clear at this point-- and this is one of the few absolute-like statements I will make-- a State must be secular. Among sovereign states, the idea of state religion must be discarded, and a policy against respecting individual establishments of religion must be adopted-- the reason being that a secular state is the only state which can and must allow all religions to practice, freely and safely. The only religious freedom barred by the secular state is the freedom to oppress, or to murder. For religion must be held to the standards of humanity, and must not be permitted-- as a people-- to deny the rights of all humans to those they deem unworthy of them.
The exceptions being the city-state, such as Vatican City. Jerusalem must not be incorporated into external state; it must be given sovereign status like Vatican City, and ruled by a Jewish/Muslim/Christian triumvirate of a quasi-secular nature.
But I do think that the middle east will never truly experience peace until the rights of muslim arabs and jews both are respected, as all citizens living on the same damn land.
I think that it is abundantly clear at this point-- and this is one of the few absolute-like statements I will make-- a State must be secular. Among sovereign states, the idea of state religion must be discarded, and a policy against respecting individual establishments of religion must be adopted-- the reason being that a secular state is the only state which can and must allow all religions to practice, freely and safely. The only religious freedom barred by the secular state is the freedom to oppress, or to murder. For religion must be held to the standards of humanity, and must not be permitted-- as a people-- to deny the rights of all humans to those they deem unworthy of them.
The exceptions being the city-state, such as Vatican City. Jerusalem must not be incorporated into external state; it must be given sovereign status like Vatican City, and ruled by a Jewish/Muslim/Christian triumvirate of a quasi-secular nature.
But I do think that the middle east will never truly experience peace until the rights of muslim arabs and jews both are respected, as all citizens living on the same damn land.
Tuesday, May 6, 2008
The Lorax Facepalmed
Part of...well, any political whatever ought to, at least, involve a goal, and, you know, doing things that get you closer to that goal.
Which is why the whole bit about allowances for pollutions for companies and things pisses me off so egregiously. If the goal is to reduce emissions, how exactly does telling companies the goal-- without telling them how to go about it, but that they can trade pollution allowances with cleaner companies-- accomplish this? We're talking real reality, not a Sim City type, where the friendly AI could pop up a message, "sorry, you can't make any more Thneeds, you have reached your Emissions Limit for this quarter :)"
One must always keep in mind the oft forgotten fact that government does not exist to ensure that companies continually turn a profit. And while forced shut-downs of non-essential businesses who fail to live up to responsibility standards may be extreme, it is a more serious solution to the stated problem than what is on the table thusfar.
This all, of course, assumes that the stated goal is desirable. But if it is, let's bloody well take it seriously, by cracky.
Which is why the whole bit about allowances for pollutions for companies and things pisses me off so egregiously. If the goal is to reduce emissions, how exactly does telling companies the goal-- without telling them how to go about it, but that they can trade pollution allowances with cleaner companies-- accomplish this? We're talking real reality, not a Sim City type, where the friendly AI could pop up a message, "sorry, you can't make any more Thneeds, you have reached your Emissions Limit for this quarter :)"
One must always keep in mind the oft forgotten fact that government does not exist to ensure that companies continually turn a profit. And while forced shut-downs of non-essential businesses who fail to live up to responsibility standards may be extreme, it is a more serious solution to the stated problem than what is on the table thusfar.
This all, of course, assumes that the stated goal is desirable. But if it is, let's bloody well take it seriously, by cracky.
Friday, May 2, 2008
Assuming positions.
I realise I have quite a bit to lay out in the way of both my philosophy in terms of how to actually come to conclusions, given the positions and attitudes of those around. And I have some good illustrative anecdotes as regards that, that I will go over later, as I have a ginormous headache right now.
But I did wish to make the point that being a moderate does not mean rejecting extreme policies-- in some ways, the moderate stance involves the most extreme measures. It means doing things in such a way that, while both sides may bitch and moan because it is not /exactly/ what they wanted (and it doesn't undercut the other guy totally), actually gives them as much of what they really want/need as possible.
Anyway. See Joseph Andrew's Speech on why he switched from Clinton to Obama. You can argue all you want about this particular guy and whether he is honest, whether he's right about Obama, whatever. It doesn't matter. What he is saying in this speech, and his reasons for doing what he is doing now, are Right.
IMHO.
But I did wish to make the point that being a moderate does not mean rejecting extreme policies-- in some ways, the moderate stance involves the most extreme measures. It means doing things in such a way that, while both sides may bitch and moan because it is not /exactly/ what they wanted (and it doesn't undercut the other guy totally), actually gives them as much of what they really want/need as possible.
Anyway. See Joseph Andrew's Speech on why he switched from Clinton to Obama. You can argue all you want about this particular guy and whether he is honest, whether he's right about Obama, whatever. It doesn't matter. What he is saying in this speech, and his reasons for doing what he is doing now, are Right.
IMHO.
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
The Teal Deer of Iraq.
I admire and somewhat envy David Petraeus. I really do: He's getting to do something on a large scale and with enormous resources that few people get to do-- Fix Things.
No, I'm serious. He gets to go somewhere profoundly broken (let's leave aside, for the moment as immaterial, the question of who broke it) and make a concerted effort to make it less broken.
Now, this is very distinct from fighting a war, although what he has are soldiers (and National Guardsmen, another element of distinction), and there is some fighting. This is, in effect, what the establishment called Vietnam: a police action. But I digress.
The point is, here is a man who has the ability to ignore the questions of shouldn't and should, ignore the controversies, bend his head, and do-- not /precisely/ what he has been told to do ('win the war' is at this point an abstract that has no meaning; there is no victory against insurgents. You can't kill an idea, and a faith that encourages martyrdom gains strength everytime you do it physical damage, something that implies that the Military Heads should learn more strategy from Japanese video games), but rather, what is the best thing to do in the context of his given mission. I am hardly trying to draw a comparison between him and the 'Just Following Orders' school of Godwin. No, he's turning this whole thing into a humanitarian mission, and basing his reports on the assumption that the Primary Objective is to make Iraq a successful state. In his behavior, (because I am not going to escape a Third Reich comparison, but in this instance, it isn't wholly negative I swear), he is more a Gaulieter, of the school that wished to look after their respective regions like, well, like Murat or Bernadotte did the areas over which they were given Kingship. And you can have respect for that, know where he's coming from, if you think of it that way.
That said.
He /is/ coming to the table with the assumption that... well a) that we ultimately care about whether or not Iraq is a thriving, successful state and b) assuming that yes, on some level we care, that Iraq's success trumps any number of other possible priorities at this time. Given this, of course he will say that we need to keep troops there. It's in order to preserve stability.
And there are those that say he's right, to allude to the point I ignored earlier, if for no other reason than the fact that we broke it, and so ought to fix it. Although some others will argue that it was broken in the first place.
However, there's a wide and possibly growing segment who disagree with the General on the basic assumption-- they simply have decided that stability in Iraq is not a priority. Sorry, Dave. Your mission doesn't matter.
Barak Obama, I think, was saying this clearly when he made the statements about how he was certain that the military establishment would carry out the missions he gave them. He, I gather, understood where Petraeus was coming from-- he was giving the best report he knew, in light of his set goals as he understood them. Great. As far as Obama's concerned, he'd probably do just as well (and his methods have been rather ingenious and creative, or else not unlike the US Army's in The Last Samurai)if he were sent to Zimbabwe, (to mention an international travesty in which the US definitely won't intervene), or Darfur, or Lhasa. And there are those who might be of the opinion that those would be worthier missions, myself included.
Because on the other end of the responsibility spectrum, the real war is, and always should have been, in Afghanistan. And we've got to pay for that one already. While not having to suffer from the usual problems of fighting a war on two fronts-- i.e., exposure to being sliced apart, although we've definitely got some troops being stretched thin, we're really being hit in the cost department, that way. And at the moment, for numerous reasons, the American people can't afford a war. The gas prices hiked with the invasion of Iraq, and the Oil companies want to keep them right where they are, because it seems that a prerequisite of being an Oil baron is short-sightedness (except in the arena of strict market futures), and narrow field of vision. Tl;dr: they want to make money NOW and don't give a toss about the future in general. But that's another, and painfully obvious rant, and perhaps, if I were in a doomed industry, I might decide that hastening its demise by jacking up prices to the point where consumption will necessarily shift to other forms of energy, to make as much as possible while I still can would be a great idea. After all, maybe one day, oil will be like coal now, the fallback position for developing nations who have to use dirty energy because they can't do anything else. And I would bleed those economies happily. Perhaps.
But I was talking about David Petraeus. And sympathizing. Sir: I feel your pain, I really do.
And yes, I have something of an idea as to what one might do to /actually/ stabilize the middle east as a whole. But Jimmy Carter's gone and tried to do a lot of it, so... yeah.
No, I'm serious. He gets to go somewhere profoundly broken (let's leave aside, for the moment as immaterial, the question of who broke it) and make a concerted effort to make it less broken.
Now, this is very distinct from fighting a war, although what he has are soldiers (and National Guardsmen, another element of distinction), and there is some fighting. This is, in effect, what the establishment called Vietnam: a police action. But I digress.
The point is, here is a man who has the ability to ignore the questions of shouldn't and should, ignore the controversies, bend his head, and do-- not /precisely/ what he has been told to do ('win the war' is at this point an abstract that has no meaning; there is no victory against insurgents. You can't kill an idea, and a faith that encourages martyrdom gains strength everytime you do it physical damage, something that implies that the Military Heads should learn more strategy from Japanese video games), but rather, what is the best thing to do in the context of his given mission. I am hardly trying to draw a comparison between him and the 'Just Following Orders' school of Godwin. No, he's turning this whole thing into a humanitarian mission, and basing his reports on the assumption that the Primary Objective is to make Iraq a successful state. In his behavior, (because I am not going to escape a Third Reich comparison, but in this instance, it isn't wholly negative I swear), he is more a Gaulieter, of the school that wished to look after their respective regions like, well, like Murat or Bernadotte did the areas over which they were given Kingship. And you can have respect for that, know where he's coming from, if you think of it that way.
That said.
He /is/ coming to the table with the assumption that... well a) that we ultimately care about whether or not Iraq is a thriving, successful state and b) assuming that yes, on some level we care, that Iraq's success trumps any number of other possible priorities at this time. Given this, of course he will say that we need to keep troops there. It's in order to preserve stability.
And there are those that say he's right, to allude to the point I ignored earlier, if for no other reason than the fact that we broke it, and so ought to fix it. Although some others will argue that it was broken in the first place.
However, there's a wide and possibly growing segment who disagree with the General on the basic assumption-- they simply have decided that stability in Iraq is not a priority. Sorry, Dave. Your mission doesn't matter.
Barak Obama, I think, was saying this clearly when he made the statements about how he was certain that the military establishment would carry out the missions he gave them. He, I gather, understood where Petraeus was coming from-- he was giving the best report he knew, in light of his set goals as he understood them. Great. As far as Obama's concerned, he'd probably do just as well (and his methods have been rather ingenious and creative, or else not unlike the US Army's in The Last Samurai)if he were sent to Zimbabwe, (to mention an international travesty in which the US definitely won't intervene), or Darfur, or Lhasa. And there are those who might be of the opinion that those would be worthier missions, myself included.
Because on the other end of the responsibility spectrum, the real war is, and always should have been, in Afghanistan. And we've got to pay for that one already. While not having to suffer from the usual problems of fighting a war on two fronts-- i.e., exposure to being sliced apart, although we've definitely got some troops being stretched thin, we're really being hit in the cost department, that way. And at the moment, for numerous reasons, the American people can't afford a war. The gas prices hiked with the invasion of Iraq, and the Oil companies want to keep them right where they are, because it seems that a prerequisite of being an Oil baron is short-sightedness (except in the arena of strict market futures), and narrow field of vision. Tl;dr: they want to make money NOW and don't give a toss about the future in general. But that's another, and painfully obvious rant, and perhaps, if I were in a doomed industry, I might decide that hastening its demise by jacking up prices to the point where consumption will necessarily shift to other forms of energy, to make as much as possible while I still can would be a great idea. After all, maybe one day, oil will be like coal now, the fallback position for developing nations who have to use dirty energy because they can't do anything else. And I would bleed those economies happily. Perhaps.
But I was talking about David Petraeus. And sympathizing. Sir: I feel your pain, I really do.
And yes, I have something of an idea as to what one might do to /actually/ stabilize the middle east as a whole. But Jimmy Carter's gone and tried to do a lot of it, so... yeah.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)