I had a rather peculiar dream last night. It reminded me of Dante and Mr. Callihan.
I dreamt I was the team leader on a team of 5 Classic scholars and scientists, who began mapping the various distances, orbits, and courses of all the planets and stars that we could reasonably accurately measure. We worked for 5 years to plot all this data, and then began to project these courses as far forward into the future, and as far back into history as was reasonably probable. We based this data on the so-called "Meridian," a huge span which covered the time when the data was captured.
The second half of the project that I dreamed was the conversion of these equations -- the courses of the planets and stars -- into data which represented sound waves. The data was first translated, then condensed to produce reasonable sound waves. These were loaded into a massive database, consisting of some millions of sound wave files, condensed to make a file of only 3 minutes. Three minutes was condensed from the millions of years that the waves actually covered.
We called this database the "Meridian audiograph."
The last task was to begin to play the sound waves, using advanced audio equipment. Even condensed, the beginning was incredible and eerie sounds at the highest and lowest pitches, all creating a chilling mass of sounds. But as the audiograph moved towards the meridian point, the sounds began to gradually blend, and formed music that began to be more and more deliberate and crafted.
Thursday, March 29, 2007
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
Heretic
This is from an Al-Jazeera interview with Wafa Sultan, an Arab psychiatrist living in L.A. It is very compelling, particularly at the end. This is a translation of the transcript, which is unfortunate -- the Arabic she uses is very dramatic, rhythmic, and compelling.
-A
The clash we are witnessing around the world is not a clash of religions, or a clash of civilizations. It is a clash between two opposites, between two eras. It is a clash between a mentality that belongs to the Middle Ages and another mentality that belongs to the 21st century. It is a clash between civilization and backwardness, between the civilized and the primitive, between barbarity and rationality. It is a clash between freedom and oppression, between democracy and dictatorship. It is a clash between human rights, on the one hand, and the violation of these rights, on other hand. It is a clash between those who treat women like beasts, and those who treat them like human beings. What we see today is not a clash of civilizations. Civilizations do not clash, but compete.
The Muslims are the ones who began the clash of civilizations. The Prophet of Islam said: "I was ordered to fight the people until they believe in Allah and His Messenger." When the Muslims divided the people into Muslims and non-Muslims, and called to fight the others until they believe in what they themselves believe, they started this clash, and began this war. In order to stop this war, they must reexamine their Islamic books and curricula, which are full of calls for takfir and fighting the infidels.
note: "people of the book" is an Islamic term, used derisively, for Jews and Christians -- those who have received part of scripture, but do not believe.
My colleague has said that he never offends other people's beliefs. What civilization on the face of this earth allows him to call other people by names that they did not choose for themselves? Once, he calls them Ahl Al-Dhimma, another time he calls them the "People of the Book," and yet another time he compares them to apes and pigs, or he calls the Christians "those who incur Allah's wrath." Who told you that they are "People of the Book"? They are not the People of the Book, they are people of many books. All the useful scientific books that you have today are theirs, the fruit of their free and creative thinking. What gives you the right to call them "those who incur Allah's wrath," or "those who have gone astray," and then come here and say that your religion commands you to refrain from offending the beliefs of others?
I am not a Christian, a Muslim, or a Jew. I am a secular human being. I do not believe in the supernatural, but I respect others' right to believe in it.
Brother, you can believe in stones, as long as you don't throw them at me.
The Jews have come from the tragedy (of the Holocaust), and forced the world to respect them, with their knowledge, not with their terror, with their work, not their crying and yelling. Humanity owes most of the discoveries and science of the 19th and 20th centuries to Jewish scientists. 15 million people, scattered throughout the world, united and won their rights through work and knowledge. We have not seen a single Jew blow himself up in a German restaurant. We have not seen a single Jew destroy a church. We have not seen a single Jew protest by killing people.
The Muslims have turned three Buddha statues into rubble. We have not seen a single Buddhist burn down a Mosque, kill a Muslim, or burn down an embassy. Only the Muslims defend their beliefs by burning down churches, killing people, and destroying embassies. This path will not yield any results. The Muslims must ask themselves what they can do for humankind, before they demand that humankind respect them.
-A
The clash we are witnessing around the world is not a clash of religions, or a clash of civilizations. It is a clash between two opposites, between two eras. It is a clash between a mentality that belongs to the Middle Ages and another mentality that belongs to the 21st century. It is a clash between civilization and backwardness, between the civilized and the primitive, between barbarity and rationality. It is a clash between freedom and oppression, between democracy and dictatorship. It is a clash between human rights, on the one hand, and the violation of these rights, on other hand. It is a clash between those who treat women like beasts, and those who treat them like human beings. What we see today is not a clash of civilizations. Civilizations do not clash, but compete.
The Muslims are the ones who began the clash of civilizations. The Prophet of Islam said: "I was ordered to fight the people until they believe in Allah and His Messenger." When the Muslims divided the people into Muslims and non-Muslims, and called to fight the others until they believe in what they themselves believe, they started this clash, and began this war. In order to stop this war, they must reexamine their Islamic books and curricula, which are full of calls for takfir and fighting the infidels.
note: "people of the book" is an Islamic term, used derisively, for Jews and Christians -- those who have received part of scripture, but do not believe.
My colleague has said that he never offends other people's beliefs. What civilization on the face of this earth allows him to call other people by names that they did not choose for themselves? Once, he calls them Ahl Al-Dhimma, another time he calls them the "People of the Book," and yet another time he compares them to apes and pigs, or he calls the Christians "those who incur Allah's wrath." Who told you that they are "People of the Book"? They are not the People of the Book, they are people of many books. All the useful scientific books that you have today are theirs, the fruit of their free and creative thinking. What gives you the right to call them "those who incur Allah's wrath," or "those who have gone astray," and then come here and say that your religion commands you to refrain from offending the beliefs of others?
I am not a Christian, a Muslim, or a Jew. I am a secular human being. I do not believe in the supernatural, but I respect others' right to believe in it.
Brother, you can believe in stones, as long as you don't throw them at me.
The Jews have come from the tragedy (of the Holocaust), and forced the world to respect them, with their knowledge, not with their terror, with their work, not their crying and yelling. Humanity owes most of the discoveries and science of the 19th and 20th centuries to Jewish scientists. 15 million people, scattered throughout the world, united and won their rights through work and knowledge. We have not seen a single Jew blow himself up in a German restaurant. We have not seen a single Jew destroy a church. We have not seen a single Jew protest by killing people.
The Muslims have turned three Buddha statues into rubble. We have not seen a single Buddhist burn down a Mosque, kill a Muslim, or burn down an embassy. Only the Muslims defend their beliefs by burning down churches, killing people, and destroying embassies. This path will not yield any results. The Muslims must ask themselves what they can do for humankind, before they demand that humankind respect them.
A Different Phase
Blair's claim that he is ready for "a different phase" in resolving the hostage crisis if diplomacy fails is ominous and strong. The U.S. is now conducting major exercises off the Iranian coast. The situation looks interesting, to say the least.
In short, what Blair means is this: Capturing Iranian agents who are shooting at, or planting bombs against coalition forces in Iraq is quite different from what is happening here. The encroachment of another nation's territory in order to capture troops operating there is something done by nations at war.
If the Islamic Republic wishes that a state of war exist between them and Britain or the U.S., they need only continue on course.
In short, what Blair means is this: Capturing Iranian agents who are shooting at, or planting bombs against coalition forces in Iraq is quite different from what is happening here. The encroachment of another nation's territory in order to capture troops operating there is something done by nations at war.
If the Islamic Republic wishes that a state of war exist between them and Britain or the U.S., they need only continue on course.
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
Curiosity upon Curiosity
I enjoyed watching the Senator from my home state, Wayne Allard, address the congress last night. He is not a good speaker by any stretch of the imagination; however, he raises good points.
Yesterday, the Democratic addendums to the Bush Budget came out. After the famous first 100 hours, so full of talk of "curbing Government's appetite," "Fiscal responsibility," and the like, they amazingly have proposed increasing the budget spending by $146 Billion. That is drastic. That means two other interesting things: the government must raise Federal taxes by 3%, the biggest single tax raise in history, and that instead of a declining deficit, as the Bush budget proposes, this will increase the deficit by 3 trillion dollars in the same number of years.
Amazing.
So much for the Bush tax cuts -- the famous cuts that helped "the wealthiest 1 %"
The wealthiest 1% in America pay 37% of the nation's taxes. The wealthiest 5% pay 57%. More than half. And the liberals hurt those they pretend to help, because the poor and middle class are not helped nearly as much by taxing the rich more. In fact, the business and industry of America is what builds up the poor and the middle class.
America's business is business, and jobs come from the same. Why hurt businesses, which provide income, by promising to tax the rich guy more than you? Never mind it may cost you your job, increase inflation (or, heaven forbid, deflation), and undermine the economy at large.
Yesterday, the Democratic addendums to the Bush Budget came out. After the famous first 100 hours, so full of talk of "curbing Government's appetite," "Fiscal responsibility," and the like, they amazingly have proposed increasing the budget spending by $146 Billion. That is drastic. That means two other interesting things: the government must raise Federal taxes by 3%, the biggest single tax raise in history, and that instead of a declining deficit, as the Bush budget proposes, this will increase the deficit by 3 trillion dollars in the same number of years.
Amazing.
So much for the Bush tax cuts -- the famous cuts that helped "the wealthiest 1 %"
The wealthiest 1% in America pay 37% of the nation's taxes. The wealthiest 5% pay 57%. More than half. And the liberals hurt those they pretend to help, because the poor and middle class are not helped nearly as much by taxing the rich more. In fact, the business and industry of America is what builds up the poor and the middle class.
America's business is business, and jobs come from the same. Why hurt businesses, which provide income, by promising to tax the rich guy more than you? Never mind it may cost you your job, increase inflation (or, heaven forbid, deflation), and undermine the economy at large.
The Four Genever seasons
A Sumptuousness in Four Acts:
Autumn:
The Martini - brisk and heavy
Like wet branches or crushed leaves
Lying beneath dry trees -- the way of all life:
Still living, but with sour edge of mortality
Blusterous, yet solemn --
Brooding and dangerous.
*
Winter:
Pink Gin - A soft name,
With the harsh bite and bitterness
of a winter evening. Savage cold
like some wrought steel or iron mould,
Bluing with the ice and frost.
But life curls beneath the death,
With spice and warmth cradling
Deep inside.
*
Spring:
Tonic with Gin - As fresh and peated
As a young garden, with songs of sprung herbs,
And germination. Grass crushed to green,
Warm rains, warmer airs open flowers,
Wafting anise, coriander to dazzling blue.
*
Summer:
Married Gin with Juice - Languid and hazy,
Lush with all the ripeness that the Summer Sun matures.
Colored, dappled deep purples, crimsons, orange and white,
Fresh with life, yet still, silent, torpid,
As a quiet afternoon, in the shaded light,
Drifting in a hammock, stirred only
By a gentle breath of wind.
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
What are you reading, my lord?
An etymological fancy. Since I used the word Brouhaha earlier, I was pleased to find its derivation.
In medieval theater, the prominance of the Devil as a character was a common motif, especially when the devil appeared disguised as a member of the Clergy. A common earmark, or character stamp, would be the peculiar exclamations of the representative devil when he appears. "Brou ha ha!"
This is, in fact, intended as a perversion (perhaps like a Shibboleth) of something that a Clergyman, being from the type of a Levite, might say "Baruch Ha-ba (be-eshm adona-i)," or "Blessed is he who comes in the name of the LORD."
This first part is perverted to "Brou, Haha!" -- an self-incriminating exclamation of evil masked as good, signifying clamorousness, catastrophe, or a noisy facade (much ado).
In medieval theater, the prominance of the Devil as a character was a common motif, especially when the devil appeared disguised as a member of the Clergy. A common earmark, or character stamp, would be the peculiar exclamations of the representative devil when he appears. "Brou ha ha!"
This is, in fact, intended as a perversion (perhaps like a Shibboleth) of something that a Clergyman, being from the type of a Levite, might say "Baruch Ha-ba (be-eshm adona-i)," or "Blessed is he who comes in the name of the LORD."
This first part is perverted to "Brou, Haha!" -- an self-incriminating exclamation of evil masked as good, signifying clamorousness, catastrophe, or a noisy facade (much ado).
Brou, Ha! Ha!
And again, manufactured politics drives the inexorable dismantling of the Bush presidency.
The latest purturbation of the media and the liberal wings of government is over the firing of some several U.S. attorneys by the D of Jus.
This is entirely a manufactured "scandal."
U.S. attorneys are not civil servants. They serve, as has been pointed out, as members of the executive branch, not the judicial branch, and they serve at the pleasure of the President. Their hiring and firing is always political. And, in the end, it seems that the worst one can say about the firing of these attorneys (all appointed by Bush himself), is that they were fired for not pursuing the agenda of the administration when instructed to do so, and that room needed to be made for more attorneys to have this on their resume.
They were asked to pursue an agenda, certainly, which is their job. They were never asked to produce a certain result, or to sway the legal process towards some party or wing.
Certainly, nothing can be said to be remotely scandelous about this issue when faced with the firing of not 8, but all 93 U.S. attorneys. This was done in 1993 by Bill Clinton. None were his appointees. Which is more political? I don't claim even Clinton was wrong. But the double standard is.
The latest purturbation of the media and the liberal wings of government is over the firing of some several U.S. attorneys by the D of Jus.
This is entirely a manufactured "scandal."
U.S. attorneys are not civil servants. They serve, as has been pointed out, as members of the executive branch, not the judicial branch, and they serve at the pleasure of the President. Their hiring and firing is always political. And, in the end, it seems that the worst one can say about the firing of these attorneys (all appointed by Bush himself), is that they were fired for not pursuing the agenda of the administration when instructed to do so, and that room needed to be made for more attorneys to have this on their resume.
They were asked to pursue an agenda, certainly, which is their job. They were never asked to produce a certain result, or to sway the legal process towards some party or wing.
Certainly, nothing can be said to be remotely scandelous about this issue when faced with the firing of not 8, but all 93 U.S. attorneys. This was done in 1993 by Bill Clinton. None were his appointees. Which is more political? I don't claim even Clinton was wrong. But the double standard is.
Monday, March 19, 2007
A Real Somethingness
I commend to you, with high regard, Doug Wilson's recent blog refutation, chapter by chapter, of The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins.
http://www.dougwils.com/index.asp?Action=ArchivesByTopic&TopicID=64
http://www.dougwils.com/index.asp?Action=ArchivesByTopic&TopicID=64
Sub-Prime Time
Since I'm going to be buying a house sometime in the next year or two, I have been watching the unraveling of the lower band of the mortgage/lending world over the past few weeks with great interest. (Hah. Great Interest. Funny.)
I'm sure Nate knows much more about this than I, but the whole thing does fascinate me. We have a nation whose financial system is driven by debt -- and this can be ok. But now into the third generation of Americans who don't understand the primal law of a credit system, and problems are rampant. That law is a paradox: you cannot go into debt to buy something you cannot afford.
But that's only a paradox to those who are now in trouble. "Well, what's the point of going into debt if you can already afford it?" Exactly.
Clearly, no one can just go buy a house with cash, unless you're a Saudi prince. But what I mean is that if something is out of your reach, don't reach for it. You're going to fall.
We can't say no to something. We need a couch, a table, a matress, a car, a house, etc. We don't know the future, and in many cases, the present isn't promising. But we buy the stuff anyway. We can't tell ourselves no. If we don't learn to appreciate the idea of scarcity, we're really in trouble.
If you cannot afford it, don't buy it. And if you have to really shuffle to make it work in the first several payment periods, you shouldn't do it.
Learn to go without things. It's ridiculously simple.
I'm sure Nate knows much more about this than I, but the whole thing does fascinate me. We have a nation whose financial system is driven by debt -- and this can be ok. But now into the third generation of Americans who don't understand the primal law of a credit system, and problems are rampant. That law is a paradox: you cannot go into debt to buy something you cannot afford.
But that's only a paradox to those who are now in trouble. "Well, what's the point of going into debt if you can already afford it?" Exactly.
Clearly, no one can just go buy a house with cash, unless you're a Saudi prince. But what I mean is that if something is out of your reach, don't reach for it. You're going to fall.
We can't say no to something. We need a couch, a table, a matress, a car, a house, etc. We don't know the future, and in many cases, the present isn't promising. But we buy the stuff anyway. We can't tell ourselves no. If we don't learn to appreciate the idea of scarcity, we're really in trouble.
If you cannot afford it, don't buy it. And if you have to really shuffle to make it work in the first several payment periods, you shouldn't do it.
Learn to go without things. It's ridiculously simple.
Old Yeller
I am caught off-guard sometimes by what the constant barrage of media has made me think. At these times I have to go back and somewhat re-trace a more reasonable line of argument on certain things. And going back to basics is useful.
Let as assume that most people can take the reasonable stand that the causes of the war can no longer be an issue. We are there, and it is common fact.
What are we weary of in Iraq?
Is it the budget, and the economic crisis that has ensued? I don't believe it is. The American people have never sacrificed less, or been called upon to sacrifice less, than in this conflict. Many point out that perhaps we should have been called upon more. But if that is the greatest fault of the leaders, I question the necessity of the anti-war vigor. The economy is not seeing its finest days, but neither is it seeing its worst, by any means. Families are not going hungry -- the average American, truth be told, is in fact feeling no direct impact of the war budget.
Are we weary of the cost of life? This is more reasonable, and every American should feel the loss of every life gravely and deeply. But this itself hardly seems to be the real weariness. Each lost life is tragic, but it alone seems to falter as an objection. Again, the American people -- American mothers and families -- have never given less in time of war. That does not diminish their sacrifice, for those who have made it, but I am extremely sceptical of the war opposition members who claim this as their agenda. Their brutish attacks and politicking seem to merit them a title less noble than "peace activists." Perhaps the irony of "peace mongers" would suffice.
What remains?
Have we grown weary of failures? I think so. I think that if all politics were thrown aside, then this would be the remaining reason.
When in American history have we laid down our arms because we were weary of a determined enemy? Any war, short and decisive, or protracted and difficult, must be undertaken, continued, and ended only upon the determination of victory achieved. Principles of just war have always maintained that victory is central to the Just War.
The very real difficulties in Iraq should only result in redoubled efforts. Anything else is senseless. Anything else is cowardice, and cowardice has become an American problem.
The only weariness that I believe might end the war justifiably, though bitterly, would be weariness at the immature and devestating bankruptcy of the Iraqi people. This is not racism -- yet because of cultural poisoning by the determined liars of Shi'a Islam, there comes a point where the stagnation of the Iraqis may lead us to shake the dust from our sandels, and leave them to their doom. Yet this time is not yet near, I believe, and I think that even in that case, it would be difficult to say that we were not simply facing a strong enemy. If that were the case, we must stay and fight. And even in that case, the question of our own safety and future arise.
If we lose this battle, the specter of defiant Shi'a, and of the Islamic Revolution of Iran, and the poisonous thugs of Sunni extremism -- the former truly becoming a world symbol in many nations' eyes; the latter, a brutal and violent mafia -- will have done what the West could not do, stabilizing the region, and perhaps have defeated the West in battle while doing it.
Let as assume that most people can take the reasonable stand that the causes of the war can no longer be an issue. We are there, and it is common fact.
What are we weary of in Iraq?
Is it the budget, and the economic crisis that has ensued? I don't believe it is. The American people have never sacrificed less, or been called upon to sacrifice less, than in this conflict. Many point out that perhaps we should have been called upon more. But if that is the greatest fault of the leaders, I question the necessity of the anti-war vigor. The economy is not seeing its finest days, but neither is it seeing its worst, by any means. Families are not going hungry -- the average American, truth be told, is in fact feeling no direct impact of the war budget.
Are we weary of the cost of life? This is more reasonable, and every American should feel the loss of every life gravely and deeply. But this itself hardly seems to be the real weariness. Each lost life is tragic, but it alone seems to falter as an objection. Again, the American people -- American mothers and families -- have never given less in time of war. That does not diminish their sacrifice, for those who have made it, but I am extremely sceptical of the war opposition members who claim this as their agenda. Their brutish attacks and politicking seem to merit them a title less noble than "peace activists." Perhaps the irony of "peace mongers" would suffice.
What remains?
Have we grown weary of failures? I think so. I think that if all politics were thrown aside, then this would be the remaining reason.
When in American history have we laid down our arms because we were weary of a determined enemy? Any war, short and decisive, or protracted and difficult, must be undertaken, continued, and ended only upon the determination of victory achieved. Principles of just war have always maintained that victory is central to the Just War.
The very real difficulties in Iraq should only result in redoubled efforts. Anything else is senseless. Anything else is cowardice, and cowardice has become an American problem.
The only weariness that I believe might end the war justifiably, though bitterly, would be weariness at the immature and devestating bankruptcy of the Iraqi people. This is not racism -- yet because of cultural poisoning by the determined liars of Shi'a Islam, there comes a point where the stagnation of the Iraqis may lead us to shake the dust from our sandels, and leave them to their doom. Yet this time is not yet near, I believe, and I think that even in that case, it would be difficult to say that we were not simply facing a strong enemy. If that were the case, we must stay and fight. And even in that case, the question of our own safety and future arise.
If we lose this battle, the specter of defiant Shi'a, and of the Islamic Revolution of Iran, and the poisonous thugs of Sunni extremism -- the former truly becoming a world symbol in many nations' eyes; the latter, a brutal and violent mafia -- will have done what the West could not do, stabilizing the region, and perhaps have defeated the West in battle while doing it.
Friday, March 16, 2007
For St. Patrick's Day
I arise today
Through a mighty strength, the invocation of the Trinity,
Through the belief in the threeness,
Through confession of the oneness
Of the Creator of Creation.
I arise today
Through the strength of Christ's birth with his baptism,
Through the strength of his crucifixion with his burial,
Through the strength of his resurrection with his ascension,
Through the strength of his descent for the judgment of Doom.
I arise today
Through the strength of the love of Cherubim,
In obedience of angels,
In the service of archangels,
In hope of resurrection to meet with reward,
In prayers of patriarchs,
In predictions of prophets,
In preaching of apostles,
In faith of confessors,
In innocence of holy virgins,
In deeds of righteous men.
I arise today
Through the strength of heaven:
Light of sun,
Radiance of moon,
Splendor of fire,
Speed of lightning,
Swiftness of wind,
Depth of sea,
Stability of earth,
Firmness of rock.
I arise today
Through God's strength to pilot me:
God's might to uphold me,
God's wisdom to guide me,
God's eye to look before me,
God's ear to hear me,
God's word to speak for me,
God's hand to guard me,
God's way to lie before me,
God's shield to protect me,
God's host to save me
From snares of devils,
From temptations of vices,
From everyone who shall wish me ill,
Afar and anear,
Alone and in multitude.
I summon today all these powers between me and those evils,
Against every cruel merciless power that may oppose my body and soul,
Against incantations of false prophets,
Against black laws of pagandom
Against false laws of heretics,
Against craft of idolatry,
Against spells of witches and smiths and wizards,
Against every knowledge that corrupts man's body and soul.
Christ to shield me today
Against poison, against burning,
Against drowning, against wounding,
So that there may come to me abundance of reward.
Christ with me,
Christ before me,
Christ behind me,
Christ in me,
Christ beneath me,
Christ above me,
Christ on my right,
Christ on my left,
Christ when I lie down,
Christ when I sit down,
Christ when I arise,
Christ in the heart of every man who thinks of me,
Christ in the mouth of everyone who speaks of me,
Christ in every eye that sees me,
Christ in every ear that hears me.
I arise today
Through a mighty strength, the invocation of the Trinity,
Through belief in the threeness,
Through confession of the oneness,
Of the Creator of Creation.
(St. Patrick)
The Center Cannot Hold
I am a firm believer in American exceptionalism, and I do not go to work each day to watch over, or participate in, the dissolution or degredation of American power.
The situation we are in today, particularly in relation to the conflict in Iraq, is serious, and full of problems and mistakes which have been made. The debate continues to be the justification for the war in Iraq -- a debate which utterly baffles me. These are debates about decisions and actions in the perfect tense; they have been made. While those decisions and actions and mistakes may continue to have an intense bearing on the future course, they cannot be unmade in the perfect tense, and unmaking them in the present will not accomplish what not having made them at all might.
I do indeed believe mistakes have been made -- I think that perhaps the war was not the right decision at the time it arose. I still fall far short of judging the conscience or even the decision-making ability of leaders like President Bush. We have, as we always do, a new perspective, and that level of decision-making is far above my pay grade, or that of most critics. But I do believe that mistakes have been made; about this, there is no question.
American power, dominance, and hegemony have been facts for almost a century now, rising out of the First World War. And for much of that time, they acted as cement in solidifying the world, or at least, the West. Even in the face of a bipolar hegemony between the U.S. and Russia, the U.S. was always recognized by most of the world as representing freedom, and holding the moral authority. Three things have always ensured this dominance.
First, a strict moral conscience and ideals of morality, freedom, and goodwill toward other nations. Second, a firm economic superiority as the World's greatest market. And lastly, an undeniable and awesome superiority of pseudo-political force and military strength.
These three things were at an apex following September 11th, and I think that in many ways, the situation in Iraq has severely weakened these three. This is not simply the fault of the government or the President. There are so many social shortcomings and failings right now that contribute -- not the least of which, the complete lack of political will of the people, the same lack that cost us a war in 1975 that had been won in 1974. These things are significant and grave, but not what I'm talking about.
Most importantly, the third of these things, our military superiority, has been squandered. This is not a shortcoming of the military, which as an institution is the finest fighting force in the world, and the ferocity with which we have overwhelmed terrorists in Iraq is awesome. But we cannot continually fight a surgical war, or one for which political reason dictates economy of force. Any time in history in which political will has caused the use of limited force, defeat has quickly followed. Those we are fighting are astute, and as aware of this as we are. As the political discontent with the war continues, their cries of victory are stronger. Ultimately, this is not about our 3,000 dead compared to their 100,000. They can still win.
Perhaps because of these factors, the war should never have begun. Yet it began. And it is alarming to me that few in the U.S. see the only possible strategy that we now must follow. John McCain has said the same thing. Victory continues to be the only course. That does not mean stay in Iraq until 2020 with little improvement. It means that we must abandon the notion of limited force and apply an overwhelming and total dedication of the nations resources into the fight. This will mean many, many more lives, and a budget that will be staggering -- that may hurt the economy, and may finally mean tangible sacrifices of the American people. But it is absolutely essential for the future of this nation.
If not, this conflict will forever be the harbinger of the American decline.
The situation we are in today, particularly in relation to the conflict in Iraq, is serious, and full of problems and mistakes which have been made. The debate continues to be the justification for the war in Iraq -- a debate which utterly baffles me. These are debates about decisions and actions in the perfect tense; they have been made. While those decisions and actions and mistakes may continue to have an intense bearing on the future course, they cannot be unmade in the perfect tense, and unmaking them in the present will not accomplish what not having made them at all might.
I do indeed believe mistakes have been made -- I think that perhaps the war was not the right decision at the time it arose. I still fall far short of judging the conscience or even the decision-making ability of leaders like President Bush. We have, as we always do, a new perspective, and that level of decision-making is far above my pay grade, or that of most critics. But I do believe that mistakes have been made; about this, there is no question.
American power, dominance, and hegemony have been facts for almost a century now, rising out of the First World War. And for much of that time, they acted as cement in solidifying the world, or at least, the West. Even in the face of a bipolar hegemony between the U.S. and Russia, the U.S. was always recognized by most of the world as representing freedom, and holding the moral authority. Three things have always ensured this dominance.
First, a strict moral conscience and ideals of morality, freedom, and goodwill toward other nations. Second, a firm economic superiority as the World's greatest market. And lastly, an undeniable and awesome superiority of pseudo-political force and military strength.
These three things were at an apex following September 11th, and I think that in many ways, the situation in Iraq has severely weakened these three. This is not simply the fault of the government or the President. There are so many social shortcomings and failings right now that contribute -- not the least of which, the complete lack of political will of the people, the same lack that cost us a war in 1975 that had been won in 1974. These things are significant and grave, but not what I'm talking about.
Most importantly, the third of these things, our military superiority, has been squandered. This is not a shortcoming of the military, which as an institution is the finest fighting force in the world, and the ferocity with which we have overwhelmed terrorists in Iraq is awesome. But we cannot continually fight a surgical war, or one for which political reason dictates economy of force. Any time in history in which political will has caused the use of limited force, defeat has quickly followed. Those we are fighting are astute, and as aware of this as we are. As the political discontent with the war continues, their cries of victory are stronger. Ultimately, this is not about our 3,000 dead compared to their 100,000. They can still win.
Perhaps because of these factors, the war should never have begun. Yet it began. And it is alarming to me that few in the U.S. see the only possible strategy that we now must follow. John McCain has said the same thing. Victory continues to be the only course. That does not mean stay in Iraq until 2020 with little improvement. It means that we must abandon the notion of limited force and apply an overwhelming and total dedication of the nations resources into the fight. This will mean many, many more lives, and a budget that will be staggering -- that may hurt the economy, and may finally mean tangible sacrifices of the American people. But it is absolutely essential for the future of this nation.
If not, this conflict will forever be the harbinger of the American decline.
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
The Horse's Mouth
It strikes me that in the question of America in the Middle East, particularly Iraq, we have a peculiar desire -- a diseased obsession -- with listening to the wrong people. We listen to Lou Dobbs, NPR field reporters, even Susan Sarandon, Sean Penn, etc., before we ever think to listen to either our strongest supporters . . . or perhaps some of the critical players on the other side.
Behold -- the following is a statement on Iranian TV by the Chief Delegate of Hizbollah in Tehran, Mr. Abdullah Safi-al-deen on 4 March 2007:
"Do you know what an American withdrawal from Iraq will mean? It will mean that Israel will lose its support. It will mean that the Lebanese Hizbullah will not need a large-scale war in order to enter Palestine. Hizbullah will be able to simply walk into Palestine. Rest assured that the day the American forces leave Iraq, the Israelis will leave the region along with them. What was one of the reasons for Olmert’s recent visit to America? He went there in order to say to the Democrats: “Don’t say that the American army will leave Iraq, because this would mean the annihilation of the Zionist regime.” This is because the annihilation of the Zionist regime has begun.
"Like some of our friends say, Palestine is no longer a problem for us, because the Americans will be forced to leave Iraq. With or without a war against Iran, they will be forced to do so. The moment they leave Iraq, you, the Muslims of the world, can walk into Palestine, because Israel will no longer exist. It will be over and done with. Even with America’s [help], Israel could not do a thing. The Americans will be kicked out of the region, without accomplishing anything. The American forces will be kicked out of the region, in disgrace, humiliation, and defeat."
Behold -- the following is a statement on Iranian TV by the Chief Delegate of Hizbollah in Tehran, Mr. Abdullah Safi-al-deen on 4 March 2007:
"Do you know what an American withdrawal from Iraq will mean? It will mean that Israel will lose its support. It will mean that the Lebanese Hizbullah will not need a large-scale war in order to enter Palestine. Hizbullah will be able to simply walk into Palestine. Rest assured that the day the American forces leave Iraq, the Israelis will leave the region along with them. What was one of the reasons for Olmert’s recent visit to America? He went there in order to say to the Democrats: “Don’t say that the American army will leave Iraq, because this would mean the annihilation of the Zionist regime.” This is because the annihilation of the Zionist regime has begun.
"Like some of our friends say, Palestine is no longer a problem for us, because the Americans will be forced to leave Iraq. With or without a war against Iran, they will be forced to do so. The moment they leave Iraq, you, the Muslims of the world, can walk into Palestine, because Israel will no longer exist. It will be over and done with. Even with America’s [help], Israel could not do a thing. The Americans will be kicked out of the region, without accomplishing anything. The American forces will be kicked out of the region, in disgrace, humiliation, and defeat."
Freedom or Equality?
There is an important issue that is being battled out in the U.K.
The question is whether or not Church (or religiously) run adoption agencies have the right to disqualify couples based on homosexuality. Specifically, our Catholic betters are on the fighting fields on this one. The Anglican church supports the effort, though its own adoption agencies do not disqualify homosexuals. Muslims also support the exemption laws, though they have no major agencies of their own.
At the heart of the issue is a relatively new British law that prevents the discrimination against couples seeking adoption who are homosexual. The Catholic church maintains that is adoption agencies are privately run and funded, and that placing a child into a home with two same-sex parents would be contrary to Christian doctrine. And the government of Britain and the gay establishment are in an uproar, claiming that this is essentially a "hate crime" and if an organization has the right to refuse service to someone based on homosexuality, then perhaps tomorrow, gay Britons will not be able to rent apartments, buy cars, or shop at grocery stores.
It seems to me, however, that the characterizations of adoption as a "service" and the Church as a "service" seem to be directly intend to slant the issue.
An editorial in The Economist claims that in this situation, Equality should trump Liberty. That's right. I had to read it a few times before it dawned on me exactly what they meant. The "rights" of gay couples to be considered as equal to other couples should trumpt the "freedom" of the Catholic church to follow its doctrine or belief.
Does that make any sense to anyone?
The question is whether or not Church (or religiously) run adoption agencies have the right to disqualify couples based on homosexuality. Specifically, our Catholic betters are on the fighting fields on this one. The Anglican church supports the effort, though its own adoption agencies do not disqualify homosexuals. Muslims also support the exemption laws, though they have no major agencies of their own.
At the heart of the issue is a relatively new British law that prevents the discrimination against couples seeking adoption who are homosexual. The Catholic church maintains that is adoption agencies are privately run and funded, and that placing a child into a home with two same-sex parents would be contrary to Christian doctrine. And the government of Britain and the gay establishment are in an uproar, claiming that this is essentially a "hate crime" and if an organization has the right to refuse service to someone based on homosexuality, then perhaps tomorrow, gay Britons will not be able to rent apartments, buy cars, or shop at grocery stores.
It seems to me, however, that the characterizations of adoption as a "service" and the Church as a "service" seem to be directly intend to slant the issue.
An editorial in The Economist claims that in this situation, Equality should trump Liberty. That's right. I had to read it a few times before it dawned on me exactly what they meant. The "rights" of gay couples to be considered as equal to other couples should trumpt the "freedom" of the Catholic church to follow its doctrine or belief.
Does that make any sense to anyone?
Sunday, March 11, 2007
Kicking Persian Posteriors and Taking Names
I just returned from the theater here (did you know that now they say here that a matinee is only a show that starts before 2:00 PM? Geez.) after watching the new Frank Miller Graphic Novel move 300. I thought I might "review" the film in case anyone was thinking of going to see it.
300 is, of course, the story of the battle of Thermopylae. I think my first and most overwhelming reaction to the movie is that I need to do a lot -- a lot -- more sit-ups.
I don't think the film claims or pretends to be a history, and I don't find its "artistic" variations objectionable on those grounds. I think the purpose of this movie is the visual theatrics, since it does originate from a graphic novel. The entire movie has a bronze tint to it, and except for the more personal scenes, it seems much more like paint in motion than actual filmed reality. But it is quite stunning and impressive, and I like the visual aspect very much -- it does lend it self well to this story, where the reality of it is less significant that the momentum. By reality, though, I would like to distinguish between grit-and-guts reality, which figures heavily in the film, and something more like reality of form or fact, which does not. And of course, as much as the art lends itself to this story, a story so magnificent lends itself very well to this fantastical art.
There is a lot of fantasy in the movie, with persian hordes looking to number in the several millions, with strange creatures at their disposal -- giants, deformed gians, weird ugly Immortals (a brigade which actually existed, though they weren't quite so much like ninjas, I suspect.) At times, because of the fantasy in it, I was reminded of movies like Hero and Crouching Tiger.
The only major annoying thing in the movie was the ending, which dragged out a little, and there was a Spartan surviver who led the Battle at Plataea who gave a pre-battle pep talk. BLAH!!! The grittiness of Leonidas at the Gates was thrilling at times, but this ending speech at Plataea was just miserable. Anyone who has seen this movie has surely seen at least one movie with a similar speech (Braveheart, and then there were four such speeches in The Lord of the Rings). This one was just a cliche, and he had such a ridiculous and nasal voice.
Anyhow, what you expect is what you get -- lots of crazy imagery, shouting dudes with crazy abs, lots of intense battle scenes. But I do think that the segments of battle and the segments among the Spartan troops were the best, and were not as shallow as they might pretend. I think the movie does capture, sometimes better than other times, the characteristics of warriors, and I think portrays very well a list of a few things that really embody soldiering.
First, an adversity-proof loyalty to leadership.
Second, an adversity-proof loyalty to subordinates.
Third, an unwavering and passionate conviction in the righteousness of cause.
Fourth, the ability to focus, not suppress, emotions like anger.
Fifth, a desire for survival and self-preservation that must always be superceded by:
Sixth and Seventh, a committment to the man next to you, and most importantly of all, a relentless spirit of aggression and viscious ferocity.
And a note -- the best battle sequence, by far, is the first one, during the first Persian onslaught. It is very difficult to watch, and very gritty, but if you watch what's going on, it's amazing. Besides the Gulf War film Bravo Two-Zero, it's the best battle scene I know of in cinama.
In reference to objectionable content, there is obviously a lot of blood, but it is not realistic blood, nor pornographic gore like in Kill Bill. When a spear hits someone, the blood appears as paint splattered on the film reel -- kind of like blood would appear in a comic book, or Graphic Novel (it's intentional, of course). I didn't find the violence objectionable, except in the case of children, who should not watch this film.
There were three segments of nudity, of which two were sexual, and I will enumerate and briefly describe what happens for the sake of anyone who's deciding if they should watch this movie. The first nude scene involves the weird trance of the Oracle, who wears some kind of very, very loose article of clothing that's about as transparent as saran wrap, so not much remains hidden. The second scene is more objectionable -- it is a brief sex scene between Leonidas and the queen, and it gets fairly graphic quickly but briefly. The third segment is, I think, the most objectionable of all. It involves the inside of Xerxes tent, wherein a lot of opium and orgies seem to be going on, and there are a lot of weird things that flash on the screen. No actual sex is shown, but there's a lot of flesh, and clearly a lot of deviant things implied and almost shown, as Xerxes plies a Greek to trechery with sex slaves. None of these three things are objectionable themes, but they show too much.
Overall, I liked the film a great deal, but I won't necessarily recommend it to anyone, and definitely discourage any non-adults from seeing it.
Tata.
300 is, of course, the story of the battle of Thermopylae. I think my first and most overwhelming reaction to the movie is that I need to do a lot -- a lot -- more sit-ups.
I don't think the film claims or pretends to be a history, and I don't find its "artistic" variations objectionable on those grounds. I think the purpose of this movie is the visual theatrics, since it does originate from a graphic novel. The entire movie has a bronze tint to it, and except for the more personal scenes, it seems much more like paint in motion than actual filmed reality. But it is quite stunning and impressive, and I like the visual aspect very much -- it does lend it self well to this story, where the reality of it is less significant that the momentum. By reality, though, I would like to distinguish between grit-and-guts reality, which figures heavily in the film, and something more like reality of form or fact, which does not. And of course, as much as the art lends itself to this story, a story so magnificent lends itself very well to this fantastical art.
There is a lot of fantasy in the movie, with persian hordes looking to number in the several millions, with strange creatures at their disposal -- giants, deformed gians, weird ugly Immortals (a brigade which actually existed, though they weren't quite so much like ninjas, I suspect.) At times, because of the fantasy in it, I was reminded of movies like Hero and Crouching Tiger.
The only major annoying thing in the movie was the ending, which dragged out a little, and there was a Spartan surviver who led the Battle at Plataea who gave a pre-battle pep talk. BLAH!!! The grittiness of Leonidas at the Gates was thrilling at times, but this ending speech at Plataea was just miserable. Anyone who has seen this movie has surely seen at least one movie with a similar speech (Braveheart, and then there were four such speeches in The Lord of the Rings). This one was just a cliche, and he had such a ridiculous and nasal voice.
Anyhow, what you expect is what you get -- lots of crazy imagery, shouting dudes with crazy abs, lots of intense battle scenes. But I do think that the segments of battle and the segments among the Spartan troops were the best, and were not as shallow as they might pretend. I think the movie does capture, sometimes better than other times, the characteristics of warriors, and I think portrays very well a list of a few things that really embody soldiering.
First, an adversity-proof loyalty to leadership.
Second, an adversity-proof loyalty to subordinates.
Third, an unwavering and passionate conviction in the righteousness of cause.
Fourth, the ability to focus, not suppress, emotions like anger.
Fifth, a desire for survival and self-preservation that must always be superceded by:
Sixth and Seventh, a committment to the man next to you, and most importantly of all, a relentless spirit of aggression and viscious ferocity.
And a note -- the best battle sequence, by far, is the first one, during the first Persian onslaught. It is very difficult to watch, and very gritty, but if you watch what's going on, it's amazing. Besides the Gulf War film Bravo Two-Zero, it's the best battle scene I know of in cinama.
In reference to objectionable content, there is obviously a lot of blood, but it is not realistic blood, nor pornographic gore like in Kill Bill. When a spear hits someone, the blood appears as paint splattered on the film reel -- kind of like blood would appear in a comic book, or Graphic Novel (it's intentional, of course). I didn't find the violence objectionable, except in the case of children, who should not watch this film.
There were three segments of nudity, of which two were sexual, and I will enumerate and briefly describe what happens for the sake of anyone who's deciding if they should watch this movie. The first nude scene involves the weird trance of the Oracle, who wears some kind of very, very loose article of clothing that's about as transparent as saran wrap, so not much remains hidden. The second scene is more objectionable -- it is a brief sex scene between Leonidas and the queen, and it gets fairly graphic quickly but briefly. The third segment is, I think, the most objectionable of all. It involves the inside of Xerxes tent, wherein a lot of opium and orgies seem to be going on, and there are a lot of weird things that flash on the screen. No actual sex is shown, but there's a lot of flesh, and clearly a lot of deviant things implied and almost shown, as Xerxes plies a Greek to trechery with sex slaves. None of these three things are objectionable themes, but they show too much.
Overall, I liked the film a great deal, but I won't necessarily recommend it to anyone, and definitely discourage any non-adults from seeing it.
Tata.
Wednesday, March 7, 2007
Doing it Trappist Style
Since my older wiser brother is so fond of his beers, may I myself recommend Chimay Bleue? This tasty belgian ale is peppery, wheaty, and figgy, and packs a punch (9% in a 750mL). I think it pairs rather well with smoked cheeses, most hard cheeses, and any great sun-grown Maduro. It's Belgian, made my Trappists, they say. I suppose that it is a beautiful substitutionary picture -- the pleasure of our long, cool drafts of this tasty brew are the result of self-sacrifice, ascetism, and silent hours of labor.
Amen.
Amen.
Any Questions?
In case you wondered. I think that we seem to tone this stuff down in the media, don't we? . . . from February 11th in Tehran. An official Introduction. This introduction is traditonal and commonplace:
Speaker: Before the speech of Mr. Ahmadinejad, President of the Islamic Republic, I would like to call out several slogans, and you will answer me out loud.
Today, throughout Islamic Iran, from south to north and from east to west, there is one cry only: Death to America.
Crowd: Death to America
Death to America
Speaker: The hatred and rage of the Muslim people…
Crowd: The hatred and rage of the Muslim people…
Speaker: is directed towards America, the infidel Satanic regime...
Crowd: is directed towards America, the infidel Satanic regime...
Speaker: America is a [defeated] regime with broken horns…
Crowd: America is a [defeated] regime with broken horns…
Speaker: It waits [for Iran] to establish relations with it…
Crowd: It waits [for Iran] to establish relations with it…
Speaker: No way will we have relations with America…
Crowd: No way will we have relations with America…
Speaker: Our struggle with America is eternal…
Crowd: Our struggle with America is eternal…
Speaker: The cry of all people on Earth...
Crowd: The cry of all people on Earth...
Speaker: Death to the filthy and accursed America
Crowd: Death to the filthy and accursed America
Speaker: Before the speech of Mr. Ahmadinejad, President of the Islamic Republic, I would like to call out several slogans, and you will answer me out loud.
Today, throughout Islamic Iran, from south to north and from east to west, there is one cry only: Death to America.
Crowd: Death to America
Death to America
Speaker: The hatred and rage of the Muslim people…
Crowd: The hatred and rage of the Muslim people…
Speaker: is directed towards America, the infidel Satanic regime...
Crowd: is directed towards America, the infidel Satanic regime...
Speaker: America is a [defeated] regime with broken horns…
Crowd: America is a [defeated] regime with broken horns…
Speaker: It waits [for Iran] to establish relations with it…
Crowd: It waits [for Iran] to establish relations with it…
Speaker: No way will we have relations with America…
Crowd: No way will we have relations with America…
Speaker: Our struggle with America is eternal…
Crowd: Our struggle with America is eternal…
Speaker: The cry of all people on Earth...
Crowd: The cry of all people on Earth...
Speaker: Death to the filthy and accursed America
Crowd: Death to the filthy and accursed America
Slim Shady
I spent much of this afternoon listening to speeches by one of the most peculiar players on the current world stage. In the Western world he is portrayed by the media as the sinister pilot of the current Iranian regime -- a regime which the media and the west seem increasingly to be willing to forgive. But we rarely see the actual events played out in speeches and rallies in Iran. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is one the most cunning and dangerous and sinister members of the Iranian government, but he mixes a humble and rational rhetoric -- in which he deliberately seems to embody the more moderate angles of the regime -- with a fluid and impassioned gift for dramatic oration, which he uses to imprint the most radical notions on the population of his country.
Ahmadinejad is a small and wiry man, rarely seen wearing anything more formal than a light jacket and a scruff beard, and appeals directly to the most common citizens of Iran. His simple Farsi leaves out the most Arabic words, and is easily understood by uneducated people. But his speeches are always spoken in a language as eloquent as it is simple, and his rhythms reflect caution and reason and calculation. He reduces all his statements to simple arguments that seem irrefutable and rational, and then sells them with a sort of "humble arrogance." He smiles and says he knows these things because he is a teacher, not a quarrelsome politician, and he knows the spirit of the Iranian people.
Despite this approach, which makes his words compelling to the poorest Iranians and the educated mullahs, he continually culminates his speeches in the vast and damning sentiments and claims for which he has gained international infamy. In fact, someone watching one of these speeches might not even notice as the gentleness of the address melts into an almost furious defamation of the West, until it is invariably greeted with cries of "Death to America." At times like this, Ahmadinejad borders between the height of oratorical achievement and appearing as a Hitler-like demagogue.
Either way, he is a gifted, cunning, and compelling speaker. And dangerous.
Ahmadinejad is a small and wiry man, rarely seen wearing anything more formal than a light jacket and a scruff beard, and appeals directly to the most common citizens of Iran. His simple Farsi leaves out the most Arabic words, and is easily understood by uneducated people. But his speeches are always spoken in a language as eloquent as it is simple, and his rhythms reflect caution and reason and calculation. He reduces all his statements to simple arguments that seem irrefutable and rational, and then sells them with a sort of "humble arrogance." He smiles and says he knows these things because he is a teacher, not a quarrelsome politician, and he knows the spirit of the Iranian people.
Despite this approach, which makes his words compelling to the poorest Iranians and the educated mullahs, he continually culminates his speeches in the vast and damning sentiments and claims for which he has gained international infamy. In fact, someone watching one of these speeches might not even notice as the gentleness of the address melts into an almost furious defamation of the West, until it is invariably greeted with cries of "Death to America." At times like this, Ahmadinejad borders between the height of oratorical achievement and appearing as a Hitler-like demagogue.
Either way, he is a gifted, cunning, and compelling speaker. And dangerous.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
