The Irony
Most anti-Iraq war folks blame Bush for going at it alone. The other way to look at it, of course, is to blame Chirac and Schroeder for forcing us to go at it alone by leaving us high and dry in the UN.
Now, we have two American-friendly administrations in both Germany and France, two administrations (not sure whether they are called that in G and F) who would've supported the Iraq war in the first place. In France, a neoconservative has been appointed the foreign minister. Interesting. Just when the majority of Americans have grown tired of Iraq and the administration is looking for backdoors out, and the Blair government is done in the UK, our other two cold war allies are changing their tune.
The world is goofy like that.
Thursday, May 31, 2007
Time=Money
People are waiting 90 minutes to get 2.99 a gallon gas in San Fran. They drove from all over to get the uber cheap gas.
It strikes me as rather stupid. How big is a typical gas tank? Mine is 14 gallons. Normally I fill up about 12 or 13 gallons. So one is saving roughly $12-13 minus the extra cost of driving out of your way. Take of $1 and let's just call it $12. By waiting 90 minutes plus whatever drive time out of your way, you're spending 2 hours to save $12. Would you work for $6 a hour? No. But people would spend 2 hours to save $12. This strikes me as rather stupid.
What is weird, however, is that I think people don't tend to be stupid when it comes to rational economic decisions...for the most part. In this case, the best way I can rationalize it is that people drove out of their way not knowing it was going to be a 90 minute wait. Once they got there, the rest of the costs were already sunk and they decided to wait. Maybe their gas tanks are bigger than mine. Say they saved 25 bucks - still not much to save for 90 minutes. Maybe most people only waited for 30 min-1 hr and the 90 minutes was max. I can see trying to save $25 for 1/2 hour wait.
The other rationale is that people are on fixed income and don't make more money by working more. The only way to "earn" more money is to save money and so putting in time saving is like earning overtime that is otherwise unavailable. I can see that.
But you also have to offset the cost of waiting, which is really boring. And not everything boils down to money saved and money earned...
People are waiting 90 minutes to get 2.99 a gallon gas in San Fran. They drove from all over to get the uber cheap gas.
It strikes me as rather stupid. How big is a typical gas tank? Mine is 14 gallons. Normally I fill up about 12 or 13 gallons. So one is saving roughly $12-13 minus the extra cost of driving out of your way. Take of $1 and let's just call it $12. By waiting 90 minutes plus whatever drive time out of your way, you're spending 2 hours to save $12. Would you work for $6 a hour? No. But people would spend 2 hours to save $12. This strikes me as rather stupid.
What is weird, however, is that I think people don't tend to be stupid when it comes to rational economic decisions...for the most part. In this case, the best way I can rationalize it is that people drove out of their way not knowing it was going to be a 90 minute wait. Once they got there, the rest of the costs were already sunk and they decided to wait. Maybe their gas tanks are bigger than mine. Say they saved 25 bucks - still not much to save for 90 minutes. Maybe most people only waited for 30 min-1 hr and the 90 minutes was max. I can see trying to save $25 for 1/2 hour wait.
The other rationale is that people are on fixed income and don't make more money by working more. The only way to "earn" more money is to save money and so putting in time saving is like earning overtime that is otherwise unavailable. I can see that.
But you also have to offset the cost of waiting, which is really boring. And not everything boils down to money saved and money earned...
Sudan
Like many Democrats, I fully support military and financial assistance to Sudan with or without UN consent to help stop the genocide.
But unlike many Democrats, I also supported the toppling of Saddam Hussein in Iraq.
What is the material difference between Sudan and Iraq? That is, why would one support stopping genocide in Sudan and not support the toppling of Saddam Hussein in Iraq?
Point 1: In Sudan there is an ongoing genocide and Iraq there was not. Fair point. But in Iraq there had been prior acts one could easily consider genocidal, ie the mass killing of Kurds and Shiites. Does that mean military force should only be used to prevent genocides and not punish past ones or prevent likely future ones? Is this a wise use of resources? Do we wait until the genocide is occuring to step in? I'm not sure. Is that the argument Democrats are making? Is this a basis for a humanitarian-based (as opposed to interested based) foreign policy?
Point 2: Iraq is a strategically important country, Sudan is not. In short, it matters to the United States what happens in Iraq as a keystone state in the Middle East. In Sudan, so long as they aren't actively harboring Al Queda (as they were in the past), there is little to no material effect to US whether a genocide occurs or not. Sure, it rubs our conscience wrong, but so should most things that go on in various parts of the world.
If one believes we should use the military in Sudan, it follows that we should've done the same with Iraq many times in the past. But most Dems seem to believe we should step in Sudan and NOT step in with Iraq. It's almost as if they believe we should only step in places where we DON'T have an interest to prove our motive is good.
There is something troubling about that point of view.
Like many Democrats, I fully support military and financial assistance to Sudan with or without UN consent to help stop the genocide.
But unlike many Democrats, I also supported the toppling of Saddam Hussein in Iraq.
What is the material difference between Sudan and Iraq? That is, why would one support stopping genocide in Sudan and not support the toppling of Saddam Hussein in Iraq?
Point 1: In Sudan there is an ongoing genocide and Iraq there was not. Fair point. But in Iraq there had been prior acts one could easily consider genocidal, ie the mass killing of Kurds and Shiites. Does that mean military force should only be used to prevent genocides and not punish past ones or prevent likely future ones? Is this a wise use of resources? Do we wait until the genocide is occuring to step in? I'm not sure. Is that the argument Democrats are making? Is this a basis for a humanitarian-based (as opposed to interested based) foreign policy?
Point 2: Iraq is a strategically important country, Sudan is not. In short, it matters to the United States what happens in Iraq as a keystone state in the Middle East. In Sudan, so long as they aren't actively harboring Al Queda (as they were in the past), there is little to no material effect to US whether a genocide occurs or not. Sure, it rubs our conscience wrong, but so should most things that go on in various parts of the world.
If one believes we should use the military in Sudan, it follows that we should've done the same with Iraq many times in the past. But most Dems seem to believe we should step in Sudan and NOT step in with Iraq. It's almost as if they believe we should only step in places where we DON'T have an interest to prove our motive is good.
There is something troubling about that point of view.
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
On Kobe and Shaq
Here is Kobe's side of the story.
Kobe insists he never asked Shaq to be traded and that Buss was going to deal Shaq "no matter what" because of his fitness and contract demands. This is a completely false analysis because it obscures the initial issue that gave rise to the situation - Kobe and Shaq could no longer play together. When this issue became clear, Buss had a choice: Kobe or Shaq. He chose Kobe because he was younger and in better shape.
Anyone with a set of eyes knew Kobe and Shaq weren't able to play together any longer - because Kobe couldn't stand sharing the spotlight.
All the Laker's problems go away if Bryant goes. They all stay and will resurface with Bryant there. It's completely obvious.
UPDATE: Another article outlining the story that Buss told Kobe that Shaq was being dealt no matter what. Say this story is true...why does Buss tell Kobe? If he deals Shaq "no matter what," why pull Kobe into a private meeting and reveal it to him months prior and then insist the conversation remain secret? Because he made a choice - he wanted Kobe to stay and Shaq to leave.
Here is Kobe's side of the story.
Kobe insists he never asked Shaq to be traded and that Buss was going to deal Shaq "no matter what" because of his fitness and contract demands. This is a completely false analysis because it obscures the initial issue that gave rise to the situation - Kobe and Shaq could no longer play together. When this issue became clear, Buss had a choice: Kobe or Shaq. He chose Kobe because he was younger and in better shape.
Anyone with a set of eyes knew Kobe and Shaq weren't able to play together any longer - because Kobe couldn't stand sharing the spotlight.
All the Laker's problems go away if Bryant goes. They all stay and will resurface with Bryant there. It's completely obvious.
UPDATE: Another article outlining the story that Buss told Kobe that Shaq was being dealt no matter what. Say this story is true...why does Buss tell Kobe? If he deals Shaq "no matter what," why pull Kobe into a private meeting and reveal it to him months prior and then insist the conversation remain secret? Because he made a choice - he wanted Kobe to stay and Shaq to leave.
Kobe is a Cancer
I knew it years ago and probably could find an old blog entry on it. The guy is now demanding a trade from the Lakers. Basically, this is the course of events:
1. Kobe and Shaq can win several titles together, not because they have a great team, but because at the time they were two of the top five players in the NBA on a single team and didn't have any great competition.
2. Kobe's young and enormous ego can't stand the idea that maybe he could only win with Shaq and secretly wants him traded away to prove he can win games all by his lonesome.
3. While Kobe now denies that he wanted Shaq gone, it was clear at the time in both the media coverage and the Laker front office that they needed to make a choice: Shaq or Kobe and they chose Kobe. Maybe Kobe never came out and said it, but he never denied it once it became public knowledge. It is what he wanted. No doubt.
4. Shaq goes to Heat and wins Championship with Wade and Riley. And this is a lesser Shaq than with the Lakers.
5. Kobe and Phil Jackson fail to get any other superstars because no one wants to play with Kobe and frankly, Kobe doesn't want to play with anyone who would take the spotlight away from him.
6. Kobe becomes known as the single greatest talent in the NBA, scores 81 points in a single game, seems to be "the best," but never an MVP...come to think of it, he doesn't even win a playoff series.
7. Lakers become a borderline playoff team that can't get out of the first round.
8. Kobe wants to be traded.
Why is Kobe a cancer? Because he got exactly what he wanted - to have a shot at being a superstar and carry his team all by his lonesome. He fantasized about taking a team of shlubs to the championship so he could be crowned a greater player than Jordan by winning with no help at all. But he couldn't - of course he couldn't - if he had half a brain or was taugh the basics, that basketball is a team sport and not about his own glory...but no, he's missing that chromosome. He always has. And that's not something that can be taught.
So now what does he do to the organization that bent over backwards to do everything he wanted? To an organization that placed all their chips in his corner, bet on him by sacrificing everything to please him? He wants to be traded, citing their choice not to go after players that can win.
That is what cancerous people do. They bite the hand that feeds them. They are their own worst enemy, setting themselves and whoever is around them up for failure. I've been saying that for years. It's been obvious for years. And now all the Laker fans who loved Kobe - he'll feel their wrath.
And watch - the Lakers will be better in the near future. Shoot, I might even start rooting for them again. If they really want to win and get nasty, they'll trade Kobe to their rivals - the Suns - because I guarantee wherever he goes, unhappiness will follow.
I knew it years ago and probably could find an old blog entry on it. The guy is now demanding a trade from the Lakers. Basically, this is the course of events:
1. Kobe and Shaq can win several titles together, not because they have a great team, but because at the time they were two of the top five players in the NBA on a single team and didn't have any great competition.
2. Kobe's young and enormous ego can't stand the idea that maybe he could only win with Shaq and secretly wants him traded away to prove he can win games all by his lonesome.
3. While Kobe now denies that he wanted Shaq gone, it was clear at the time in both the media coverage and the Laker front office that they needed to make a choice: Shaq or Kobe and they chose Kobe. Maybe Kobe never came out and said it, but he never denied it once it became public knowledge. It is what he wanted. No doubt.
4. Shaq goes to Heat and wins Championship with Wade and Riley. And this is a lesser Shaq than with the Lakers.
5. Kobe and Phil Jackson fail to get any other superstars because no one wants to play with Kobe and frankly, Kobe doesn't want to play with anyone who would take the spotlight away from him.
6. Kobe becomes known as the single greatest talent in the NBA, scores 81 points in a single game, seems to be "the best," but never an MVP...come to think of it, he doesn't even win a playoff series.
7. Lakers become a borderline playoff team that can't get out of the first round.
8. Kobe wants to be traded.
Why is Kobe a cancer? Because he got exactly what he wanted - to have a shot at being a superstar and carry his team all by his lonesome. He fantasized about taking a team of shlubs to the championship so he could be crowned a greater player than Jordan by winning with no help at all. But he couldn't - of course he couldn't - if he had half a brain or was taugh the basics, that basketball is a team sport and not about his own glory...but no, he's missing that chromosome. He always has. And that's not something that can be taught.
So now what does he do to the organization that bent over backwards to do everything he wanted? To an organization that placed all their chips in his corner, bet on him by sacrificing everything to please him? He wants to be traded, citing their choice not to go after players that can win.
That is what cancerous people do. They bite the hand that feeds them. They are their own worst enemy, setting themselves and whoever is around them up for failure. I've been saying that for years. It's been obvious for years. And now all the Laker fans who loved Kobe - he'll feel their wrath.
And watch - the Lakers will be better in the near future. Shoot, I might even start rooting for them again. If they really want to win and get nasty, they'll trade Kobe to their rivals - the Suns - because I guarantee wherever he goes, unhappiness will follow.
Sunday, May 27, 2007
Some Things Are Morally Grey
But others are not.
An exerpt:
But others are not.
An exerpt:
Today, a homophobic mob set upon a group of Russians and Europeans who were trying to present Moscow's mayor, Yuri Luzhkov, with a memo from 40 members of the European parliament requesting that gay Russians be permitted to assemble freely in the city. The cops arrested the gay activists - not the violent mob.
Saturday, May 26, 2007
Lebanon
The Lebanese Army vs. Al Queda's branch in Palestinian refugee camps. Michael Totten breaks it down.
US Military is aiding the army. Good.
Will selling out Lebanon be part of the deal to withdraw from Iraq? Will let Assad step in again in Lebanon in exchange for a deal in Iraq? I hope not.
What is the benefit to us to compromise on these issues?
The Lebanese Army vs. Al Queda's branch in Palestinian refugee camps. Michael Totten breaks it down.
US Military is aiding the army. Good.
Will selling out Lebanon be part of the deal to withdraw from Iraq? Will let Assad step in again in Lebanon in exchange for a deal in Iraq? I hope not.
What is the benefit to us to compromise on these issues?
Thursday, May 24, 2007
Bitch
You can make fun of liberals all you want, but don't make fun of Marin and expect me not to call you a hoe-bag biaaach.
You can make fun of liberals all you want, but don't make fun of Marin and expect me not to call you a hoe-bag biaaach.
Dave Chapelle and Imitative Humor
My favorite bits of Chapelle stand up are his voice adjustments into his white friend, Chip, the little black drug dealing baby, and Bill Clinton. He also transforms into R. Kelly, the Niggers Milkman, and a host of other charactictures on his show. The laughs with Chapelle come from his imitations of others...which is high form of interpretative art, taking an existing personality and reshaping and reorganizing elements and morphing into through this goofy, skinny, weed smoking, incredibly intelligent performer.
Chapelle has a unique talent for doing this and is one of the very few that I think are intrinsically funny. Just looking at the guy sit and drink coffee would probably be funny.
My favorite bits of Chapelle stand up are his voice adjustments into his white friend, Chip, the little black drug dealing baby, and Bill Clinton. He also transforms into R. Kelly, the Niggers Milkman, and a host of other charactictures on his show. The laughs with Chapelle come from his imitations of others...which is high form of interpretative art, taking an existing personality and reshaping and reorganizing elements and morphing into through this goofy, skinny, weed smoking, incredibly intelligent performer.
Chapelle has a unique talent for doing this and is one of the very few that I think are intrinsically funny. Just looking at the guy sit and drink coffee would probably be funny.
Niners Offense
I'm liking the Niners offense this year...
A year wiser Alex Smith. He isn't in the top tier of QBs, but he isn't in the bottom tier, either. He'll improve.
After LD, Frank Gore is the best back in the league. I hope the OL can do as well this year as last year.
Vernon Davis is no longer a rookie and he showed moments of brilliance after a generally underwhelming rookie season at TE.
Darrell Jackson gives us a legit receiver. It'll take the pressure off 2 and 3 whoever they end up being.
I'm saying, we're gonna be solid. Playoffs are a good possibility.
I'm liking the Niners offense this year...
A year wiser Alex Smith. He isn't in the top tier of QBs, but he isn't in the bottom tier, either. He'll improve.
After LD, Frank Gore is the best back in the league. I hope the OL can do as well this year as last year.
Vernon Davis is no longer a rookie and he showed moments of brilliance after a generally underwhelming rookie season at TE.
Darrell Jackson gives us a legit receiver. It'll take the pressure off 2 and 3 whoever they end up being.
I'm saying, we're gonna be solid. Playoffs are a good possibility.
Was WWII Worth It?
An interesting article by Pat Buchanan.
The arguments he makes against US-British involvement in WWII seem to match perfectly with the anti-war arguments against Iraq. Not surprisingly, Buchanan has always been against the Iraq war. Oh, yes, the uber liberals should not forget who they're in bed with - the Pat Buchanan right.
His point: The British reason for entering WWII was to free Poland and Czechoslovakia. At war's end, they were free from Hitler, but under another tyrant who in sheer of people who he killed, worse than Hitler - Stalin. (Iraq parallel: WMDs)
The allies freed Western Europe, but Western Europe was only attacked AFTER the British and French declared war on the Nazis. Perhaps World War 2 was in large part, our fault. (Iraq parallel: US and Brits going at it alone)
Other facts not mentioned by Buchanan...the severity of the holocaust didn't escalate until 1942 after the fighting between Russia and Germany had gotten particularly brutal. (Iraq parallel: Al Queda's brutal presence in post-war Iraq)
Maybe if Winston Churchill hadn't been such a neoconservative, Hitler wouldn't have attacked anyone else, Stalin and Hitler would've never come to blows, and the holocaust would've been much less severe. In short, maybe the comparisons between Iraq and Germany are apt - that Hitler wasn't much of a threat until we made him into one. Plus, lets face facts, Germans elected Hitler...we deposed a democratically elected official.
In any case, was it worth 50 million lives?
I'm being facetious.
An interesting article by Pat Buchanan.
The arguments he makes against US-British involvement in WWII seem to match perfectly with the anti-war arguments against Iraq. Not surprisingly, Buchanan has always been against the Iraq war. Oh, yes, the uber liberals should not forget who they're in bed with - the Pat Buchanan right.
His point: The British reason for entering WWII was to free Poland and Czechoslovakia. At war's end, they were free from Hitler, but under another tyrant who in sheer of people who he killed, worse than Hitler - Stalin. (Iraq parallel: WMDs)
The allies freed Western Europe, but Western Europe was only attacked AFTER the British and French declared war on the Nazis. Perhaps World War 2 was in large part, our fault. (Iraq parallel: US and Brits going at it alone)
Other facts not mentioned by Buchanan...the severity of the holocaust didn't escalate until 1942 after the fighting between Russia and Germany had gotten particularly brutal. (Iraq parallel: Al Queda's brutal presence in post-war Iraq)
Maybe if Winston Churchill hadn't been such a neoconservative, Hitler wouldn't have attacked anyone else, Stalin and Hitler would've never come to blows, and the holocaust would've been much less severe. In short, maybe the comparisons between Iraq and Germany are apt - that Hitler wasn't much of a threat until we made him into one. Plus, lets face facts, Germans elected Hitler...we deposed a democratically elected official.
In any case, was it worth 50 million lives?
I'm being facetious.
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
Styles of Humor
I've been thinking about this for a couple days now and a conversation tonight prompted me to try to chronicle different styles of humor and their characteristics. This could become a very long topic that I continually come back to.
Reaction Humor - Best example: The Office. I consider reaction humor a unique type of humor because of where the comic beat falls. It falls upon the reaction and not the joke itself. The Office is the perfect example of this type of humor, where the Gervais or Carell character says or does something painful and we see the reaction of other characters (often multiple) and sometimes even the Gervais or Carell character himself. And the laugh generally comes from identifying with the uncomfortableness of the reacting characters - rather than anything objectively funny.
Observational Humor - Best example: Seinfeld/Curb. Did ya ever notice? This is the type of humor where you find yourself nodding your head in agreement, totally relating to the exact same situation because it undoubtedly happened to you at some point. Again, more of a subjective form of humor that relies on cleverness and aloofness as opposed to pain, which I think reaction humor relies on.
Clown Humor - Best example: Borat, but also Kramer. I could see Borat falling into a Gervais-like humor category based upon pain and discomfort and also relying upon reaction...however, I think there is a fundamental difference between when you laugh at Borat vs. when you laugh in the Office. I laugh AT Borat because of what he is doing. In the Office I'm laughing WITH the characters reacting to Gervais. When Borat is trying to take the wine glass from the wine taster - I don't relate to the wine taster, I'm laughing at the way Borat is interacting with the wine taster.
More to come later on....
Mike Meyers and Repetitive Humor
Dave Chapelle and Imitative Humor
Stephen Colbert/Chris Rock and Disguised Truth Humor
The Sopranos and Morbid Humor
Tina Fey and Wacky Humor
The Onion and Written Humor
I've been thinking about this for a couple days now and a conversation tonight prompted me to try to chronicle different styles of humor and their characteristics. This could become a very long topic that I continually come back to.
Reaction Humor - Best example: The Office. I consider reaction humor a unique type of humor because of where the comic beat falls. It falls upon the reaction and not the joke itself. The Office is the perfect example of this type of humor, where the Gervais or Carell character says or does something painful and we see the reaction of other characters (often multiple) and sometimes even the Gervais or Carell character himself. And the laugh generally comes from identifying with the uncomfortableness of the reacting characters - rather than anything objectively funny.
Observational Humor - Best example: Seinfeld/Curb. Did ya ever notice? This is the type of humor where you find yourself nodding your head in agreement, totally relating to the exact same situation because it undoubtedly happened to you at some point. Again, more of a subjective form of humor that relies on cleverness and aloofness as opposed to pain, which I think reaction humor relies on.
Clown Humor - Best example: Borat, but also Kramer. I could see Borat falling into a Gervais-like humor category based upon pain and discomfort and also relying upon reaction...however, I think there is a fundamental difference between when you laugh at Borat vs. when you laugh in the Office. I laugh AT Borat because of what he is doing. In the Office I'm laughing WITH the characters reacting to Gervais. When Borat is trying to take the wine glass from the wine taster - I don't relate to the wine taster, I'm laughing at the way Borat is interacting with the wine taster.
More to come later on....
Mike Meyers and Repetitive Humor
Dave Chapelle and Imitative Humor
Stephen Colbert/Chris Rock and Disguised Truth Humor
The Sopranos and Morbid Humor
Tina Fey and Wacky Humor
The Onion and Written Humor
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
Good For the Dems
I'll give them props for not stopping funding or requiring an exit timetable.
I know this war is unpopular. And I might be the last liberal hawk on the planet. But I still believe in several things:
1. Wars aren't won and lost by opinion polls. I believe in Representative Democracy, not direct democracy. We elect a President and a Congress and they should make what they think are wise foreign policy decisions, not decisions based upon electoral popularity or what the rest of the world thinks.
2. Which brings us back to what is wise foreign policy. With respect to the Middle East, America has basically two options:
a. Support stability
b. Support reform
Supporting stability means helping those in power stay in power - in Iraq, in Saudi Arabia, in Egypt, in Iran, in Syria. It also means alienating another generation of young Arabs and giving them little option other than to suck it up and live in autocratic, repressive societies or turn towards radical Islam. It is the cheaper option of the two. And it is what most Americans now want. They want the headlines and the death to go away, get out of their face.
I, on the other hand, support reform. I support minority democratic movements in Iraq and Lebannon. I support representative government and not tyrannical regimes. Not only do I support it in moral principal, as most Americans do, but I support it in terms of America's financial and human resources. And I also believe we should continue to support, nurture, and protect these movements and send a firm message to potential democrats in the region - if you stand up, we'll stand by your side. We've never done that in the Middle East - ever. We've always sold them short so we could keep the oil flowing. And maybe those were the right decisions at the time. I just don't think they would be the right decision anymore. Maybe I'm being naive, but we've been blessed with a lot in this country and I think maybe we should be willing to sacrifice some of what we have so that others can have a similar opportunity.
3. Iraq is a keystone state in the region. This is not Vietnam, an irrelevant state from a world scale perspective. Iraq is in the heart of the most volitile region in the world, which also happens to be where 80% of the world's petrol reserves are.
4. Our need for oil is not going away anytime soon.
In order for me to admit defeat and want to leave Iraq, I guess you'd have to convince me that most Iraqis don't want us there. I am still under the impression that it is only a small minority of people committing the atrocities in Iraq, all of which are designed to make us leave. Otherwise, I'm down for sticking it out until there is a political solution whereby the majority of the insurgency puts down their weapons and together we all focus on rooting out the most radical elements, ie Al Queda.
I'll give them props for not stopping funding or requiring an exit timetable.
I know this war is unpopular. And I might be the last liberal hawk on the planet. But I still believe in several things:
1. Wars aren't won and lost by opinion polls. I believe in Representative Democracy, not direct democracy. We elect a President and a Congress and they should make what they think are wise foreign policy decisions, not decisions based upon electoral popularity or what the rest of the world thinks.
2. Which brings us back to what is wise foreign policy. With respect to the Middle East, America has basically two options:
a. Support stability
b. Support reform
Supporting stability means helping those in power stay in power - in Iraq, in Saudi Arabia, in Egypt, in Iran, in Syria. It also means alienating another generation of young Arabs and giving them little option other than to suck it up and live in autocratic, repressive societies or turn towards radical Islam. It is the cheaper option of the two. And it is what most Americans now want. They want the headlines and the death to go away, get out of their face.
I, on the other hand, support reform. I support minority democratic movements in Iraq and Lebannon. I support representative government and not tyrannical regimes. Not only do I support it in moral principal, as most Americans do, but I support it in terms of America's financial and human resources. And I also believe we should continue to support, nurture, and protect these movements and send a firm message to potential democrats in the region - if you stand up, we'll stand by your side. We've never done that in the Middle East - ever. We've always sold them short so we could keep the oil flowing. And maybe those were the right decisions at the time. I just don't think they would be the right decision anymore. Maybe I'm being naive, but we've been blessed with a lot in this country and I think maybe we should be willing to sacrifice some of what we have so that others can have a similar opportunity.
3. Iraq is a keystone state in the region. This is not Vietnam, an irrelevant state from a world scale perspective. Iraq is in the heart of the most volitile region in the world, which also happens to be where 80% of the world's petrol reserves are.
4. Our need for oil is not going away anytime soon.
In order for me to admit defeat and want to leave Iraq, I guess you'd have to convince me that most Iraqis don't want us there. I am still under the impression that it is only a small minority of people committing the atrocities in Iraq, all of which are designed to make us leave. Otherwise, I'm down for sticking it out until there is a political solution whereby the majority of the insurgency puts down their weapons and together we all focus on rooting out the most radical elements, ie Al Queda.
Soft on Sex Offenders
I'm a hardass about certain things - doing homework in writing class, Islamic Terrorism, returning phone calls, but I'm soft on other things, and one of those things is sex offenders.
This may sound weird, but bear with...
When I say I'm soft and hard, I mean it in a relative sense. I get much more pissed off than my average classmate when others in a writing class do not read material (or turn in material) before class. It doesn't just annoy me - it angers me. With respect to Islamic Terrorism, I don't give a flying shit about their grievances or point of view, I think they're a bunch of childlike pussies playing religious fascists for sport. And I really don't like people not returning phone calls, so much so that I'll do retributive things like not call them on their birthday. (I actually don't think I've ever done that, but basically, I'm not really friends with people who don't return calls).
When it comes to sex offenders, I don't like them, but I certainly don't share the extreme ire our society has toward them. I see them as victims in need of rehabilitation and not people who deserve to be beaten to death.
I bring this up because I spent my entire day watching Law and Order Special Victims Unit shows at work. For those of you who don't know, the Special Victims Unit is "an elite squad who deals with crimes of a sexual nature, the most heinous in our criminal justice system..." or something to that effect.
I like Law and Order. It's a really well done show. Overdone, of course, but there's a reason it's like the most produced show in the history of procedurals...but the way it portrays sex criminals as the worst of the worst and the sheer terror it tries to instill in the audience at these criminals is pretty creepy. And the media does this well - I think we all fear sex criminals more than almost any other type of criminal, the idea that they take children or women who are innocent and helpless and do all sorts of awful things that are incomprehensible to the rest of us. Of the cases I saw today, there was a murderer who stabbed a woman in her vagina repeatedly, a man who kidnapped orphaned Katrina victims, an old man who molested and killed four young boys 20+ years ago, a parent who adopted a son only to have him killed and collect insurance money, a teenage mother who abandoned her incestously created baby, and a teenage mother who had her boyfriend beat her stomach to have an abortion. Wow, that's a lot.
Law and Order uses only a sparce amount of music and beats and does so really effectively, often creating quite intense moments of sheer creepiness when you realize the calculated and awful acts of these criminals.
Another show that really disturbs me is that Catch a Predator reality TV show where they stage traps for sex predators and then catch them while the host wags his finger in disgust at the humiliated criminal. The host acts self-righteous and horrified, even though he staged the entire thing.
I'm not defending the acts of sex predators. But why does our society get so up in arms about the whole thing? Even prisoners seem complicit...in so far as sex offenders and rapists "get it" the worst in prison. We all seem to like this fact. It gives us some sort of secret warmth about the retributive nature of human beings.
Why does that comfort us? It's not as if it stops sex offenders from offending. We all know that sex offenders can't be fully deterred by being threatened prison or harsh punishment. We know that they were almost alway abused themselves as children. The pattern is more clear, I think, in this type of criminal than in any other type of criminal. So we know there is some sort of psychological explanation to the behaviour and yet we insist upon a retributive form of punishment - knowing full well it won't cure anything or deincentivize others from doing the same. It is almost as if we enjoy, in the cases of sex offenders, cruelty for cruelties sake.
We have millions of in this country who claim high moral ground for mistreatment of terrorist detainees and I'm guessing most of them would - if it were up to them - seriously consider cutting the balls off of sex offenders. Maybe I'm wrong.
But what about the crimes? What is the solution? I don't know. I just know we as a society hate sex offenders more than any other type of criminal and I don't think the statistics would bear out that sex offenses hurt society very much at all compared to other crime.
I'm a hardass about certain things - doing homework in writing class, Islamic Terrorism, returning phone calls, but I'm soft on other things, and one of those things is sex offenders.
This may sound weird, but bear with...
When I say I'm soft and hard, I mean it in a relative sense. I get much more pissed off than my average classmate when others in a writing class do not read material (or turn in material) before class. It doesn't just annoy me - it angers me. With respect to Islamic Terrorism, I don't give a flying shit about their grievances or point of view, I think they're a bunch of childlike pussies playing religious fascists for sport. And I really don't like people not returning phone calls, so much so that I'll do retributive things like not call them on their birthday. (I actually don't think I've ever done that, but basically, I'm not really friends with people who don't return calls).
When it comes to sex offenders, I don't like them, but I certainly don't share the extreme ire our society has toward them. I see them as victims in need of rehabilitation and not people who deserve to be beaten to death.
I bring this up because I spent my entire day watching Law and Order Special Victims Unit shows at work. For those of you who don't know, the Special Victims Unit is "an elite squad who deals with crimes of a sexual nature, the most heinous in our criminal justice system..." or something to that effect.
I like Law and Order. It's a really well done show. Overdone, of course, but there's a reason it's like the most produced show in the history of procedurals...but the way it portrays sex criminals as the worst of the worst and the sheer terror it tries to instill in the audience at these criminals is pretty creepy. And the media does this well - I think we all fear sex criminals more than almost any other type of criminal, the idea that they take children or women who are innocent and helpless and do all sorts of awful things that are incomprehensible to the rest of us. Of the cases I saw today, there was a murderer who stabbed a woman in her vagina repeatedly, a man who kidnapped orphaned Katrina victims, an old man who molested and killed four young boys 20+ years ago, a parent who adopted a son only to have him killed and collect insurance money, a teenage mother who abandoned her incestously created baby, and a teenage mother who had her boyfriend beat her stomach to have an abortion. Wow, that's a lot.
Law and Order uses only a sparce amount of music and beats and does so really effectively, often creating quite intense moments of sheer creepiness when you realize the calculated and awful acts of these criminals.
Another show that really disturbs me is that Catch a Predator reality TV show where they stage traps for sex predators and then catch them while the host wags his finger in disgust at the humiliated criminal. The host acts self-righteous and horrified, even though he staged the entire thing.
I'm not defending the acts of sex predators. But why does our society get so up in arms about the whole thing? Even prisoners seem complicit...in so far as sex offenders and rapists "get it" the worst in prison. We all seem to like this fact. It gives us some sort of secret warmth about the retributive nature of human beings.
Why does that comfort us? It's not as if it stops sex offenders from offending. We all know that sex offenders can't be fully deterred by being threatened prison or harsh punishment. We know that they were almost alway abused themselves as children. The pattern is more clear, I think, in this type of criminal than in any other type of criminal. So we know there is some sort of psychological explanation to the behaviour and yet we insist upon a retributive form of punishment - knowing full well it won't cure anything or deincentivize others from doing the same. It is almost as if we enjoy, in the cases of sex offenders, cruelty for cruelties sake.
We have millions of in this country who claim high moral ground for mistreatment of terrorist detainees and I'm guessing most of them would - if it were up to them - seriously consider cutting the balls off of sex offenders. Maybe I'm wrong.
But what about the crimes? What is the solution? I don't know. I just know we as a society hate sex offenders more than any other type of criminal and I don't think the statistics would bear out that sex offenses hurt society very much at all compared to other crime.
Monday, May 21, 2007
Fundamentally Contrarian?
Is the Atlantic known as a contrarian magazine? Maybe that explains why I like it so much. Just read an interesting article summarizing recent historical writings on WWII and an increasing wave of historical sentiment which credits the Soviet Eastern Front as being the principal theater of the war. To put it in perspective, for four years 400 German and Soviet divisions clashed in the East whereas no more than 15 Allied and 15 German divisions clashed in the West at a time. 80% of German soldiers died on the Eastern Front. The premise of the article is that WWII is known as "The Good War," but the fact is, the war was decided upon by genocidal ferocity which the Germans and Russians waged against each other. One of the authors says Stalin's steadfastness and ability to radically change the Russian military after getting their asses handed to them in 1941 was the principal reason the allies won the war.
On another note, the main article this month is about the army interogators who led to the killing of Zarqawi. A perhaps uncomfortable fact is that they used the threat of being sent to Abu Gharib to scare informants...and it worked - because the informants knew they didn't want to go there.
It worries me a bit that I'm pretty sure the world is a whole lot uglier than many of us care to admit.
Is the Atlantic known as a contrarian magazine? Maybe that explains why I like it so much. Just read an interesting article summarizing recent historical writings on WWII and an increasing wave of historical sentiment which credits the Soviet Eastern Front as being the principal theater of the war. To put it in perspective, for four years 400 German and Soviet divisions clashed in the East whereas no more than 15 Allied and 15 German divisions clashed in the West at a time. 80% of German soldiers died on the Eastern Front. The premise of the article is that WWII is known as "The Good War," but the fact is, the war was decided upon by genocidal ferocity which the Germans and Russians waged against each other. One of the authors says Stalin's steadfastness and ability to radically change the Russian military after getting their asses handed to them in 1941 was the principal reason the allies won the war.
On another note, the main article this month is about the army interogators who led to the killing of Zarqawi. A perhaps uncomfortable fact is that they used the threat of being sent to Abu Gharib to scare informants...and it worked - because the informants knew they didn't want to go there.
It worries me a bit that I'm pretty sure the world is a whole lot uglier than many of us care to admit.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)