Category: Political

This last week Dean Landsman wrote about a business meeting with a person, a long-time associate and friend, who during a heated discussion resorted to religious epithets. Dean wrote:

What shook me was the attitude as much as the epithets. I haven’t dealt with this sort of bigotry in over thirty years. And all this time, the nearly ten years I’ve been jovially interacting with this fellow (sending ribald or funny e-mails, sharing jokes, hanging out at professional meetings, and so forth) this was never even near the surface.

Calmly sitting at my desk and looking out at a pleasantly sunny day, it’s easy to wrap my mind around the complexities of the world we live in and to be able to see beyond the angers to a the core of what we can be. Yes this person said this, but here’s why. And yes this person did this, but there’s more to the story than first appears.

However, when faced with troubling times, when filled with doubt, fear, or uncertainty, our minds seem to shut down our ability to differentiate between stereotypes and reality, between symbols and people. Dean’s associate’s stress leads him to focus not on the deal, not on Dean, the man he knows, but on symbols associated with Dean – reducing the situation to a primitive state and then reacting based on this. To Dean’s horror and, understandable, confusion and hurt.

Yesterday, Israel’s ambassador to Sweden experienced a reaction similar to Dean’s associate – shocked at an art exhibit featuring a photo of a Palestinian suicide bomber in a pool of blood red water, at a conference on genocide, he reacted by throwing an exhibit spotlight into the water, temporarily damaging the exhibit.

His reasons for doing so was that he considered the exhibit a glorification of the suicide bomber in defiance of the pain of the families of the dead victims of the attack. However, according to text associated with the exhibit, the art didn’t seek to glorify the actions of the bomber; rather it sought to open the doors to a discussion about why acts such as this happen. You don’t have to condone these acts in order to want to understand them, and hopefully, find a permanent and peaceful end to them.

Unfortunately, the artist used a symbol almost guaranteed to generate reaction. But then, that’s what artists do, agree or no.

It doesn’t end by destroying art, but begins by not reacting violently to symbols. It begins by not reacting, and that’s not always easy. Or as Dean wrote:

I have decisions to make as a result of this. I will take my time, consider my options, and come to my course of action after some deliberation. At this moment the thought is to complete the one deal, and never associate with this fellow again. But it isn’t that easy.

Its never that easy. Broad strokes don’t do the job, that’s just talk and showboating.

In real life there are harder choices.

I have said in the past that I am not one of the those that supports pulling the US out of Iraq without a thought or a backward glance. I didn’t want us to invade Iraq – we didn’t have the right to abrogate the UN’s authority in this matter. However, once the deed was done, we have an obligation to ensure that Iraq not descend into civil war, or become yet another fundamentally religious regime.

With the politically strategic pullout of the US scheduled for July 1 of this year, what will happen is our people, for the most part, will be home by election time in November, but not so soon that the country has a chance to erupt into civil war. And I don’t think there’s little doubt of this happening. You can’t remove an oppressive regime over peoples of strongly differing opinions and beliefs and expect to have a smooth running, fair democracy in barely a year’s time.

Unfortunately, the group of people most likely to pay the price for our short sighted thinking will be the women of Iraq.

Both Baghdad Burning and wKen reference articles about a new vote by the US-backed Iraq Council to return the country to sharia, a dogmatic adherance to variously interpreted Islamic law that is basically going to strip the rights of women in the one Islamic country that had progressed more than any other when it comes to rights for women. Baghdad Burning wrote:

I usually ignore the emails I receive telling me to ‘embrace’ my new-found freedom and be happy that the circumstances of all Iraqi women are going to ‘improve drastically’ from what we had before. They quote Bush (which in itself speaks volumes) saying things about how repressed the Iraqi women were and how, now, they are going to be able to live free lives.

The people who write those emails often lob Iraq together with Saudi Arabia, Iran and Afghanistan and I shake my head at their ignorance but think to myself, “Well, they really need to believe their country has the best of intentions- I won’t burst their bubble.” But I’m telling everyone now- if I get any more emails about how free and liberated the Iraqi women are *now* thanks to America, they can expect a very nasty answer.

Supposedly the current adminstrator, Paul Bremer, will most likely overturn this law, but what happens in June when we start pulling out? Does anyone believe that there will be a significant change in attitude among the dominant Shiite population in that time?

Think about it – this is no different than telling women in this country that they can’t work in any position that they want; that they must be accompanied by male members of their household if they want to drive somewhere; that they have to be covered head to toe in heavy draperies regardless of the weather; that they can’t go to school, vote, breath without the expressed permission of a male dominated religious majority. Doing this to the women in this country is no different that what we’ll be doing to the women in Iraq.

The current administration knows this, but has shown little evidence of caring about this. However, lest you think that the liberals among you are going to get off without a whipping, I don’t see that there’s much interest among all of you in what happens to the women of Iraq with your silly little “Pull out now” stickers and signs.

In fact, all you’re doing is giving ammunition to the Bush administration, “You asked us to pull out, we did what you asked.”

Because of the actions of our country, we are condemning half the populace of Iraq to dark servitude without any rights, and little hope. And we – both liberals and conservatives – have done this thing.

(And before you ask, what do I suggest? Bringing in the UN to work with the Iraqi people long-term to ensure that the rights of minorities and women are upheld – paid for by the US, supported by both our troops and money. However, this time with a UN leadership, in support of a basic set of human rights that must be implemented by all countries, regardless of dominant religion. Including the US.)

Speaking of politics, the BBC has a listing of year end quotes from world leaders, among which is the following:

The capture of Saddam Hussein and the highly significant decision of Libya to give up its weapons of mass destruction provided a positive end to the year. In 2004, there can be no let up in the struggle against international terrorism. We are all its potential targets. As in the past, the government’s goals in the New Year will be to maintain for (our country) national security, economic strength and social stability.

President Bush you think? Not a bit of it. This is Australian Prime Minister John Howard’s end of the year quote, only altered to remove the country name to fool you, the unsuspecting audience.

The Taiwanese President talks about peaceful discussions and collaboration with China, while the Chinese President talks about reunification of the motherland. Nothing new there.

Then there was this, by the Ugandan leader, Yoweri Museveni:

Aids still remains a problem. We must close all the loopholes through which Aids is coming. The main route is promiscuity. Anti-retrovirals are not a cure. They prolong life, all right. However, that life is permanently gloomy. Avoid unprotected sex if you are promiscuous.

Though Museveni’s rejection of medicines, which have been shown to help AIDs sufferers live more than a ‘gloomy existence’ is discouraging, he at least admits that the country has an AIDs problem. Which is more than can be said for the South African President’s end of the year address, which doesn’t meantion AIDs, the country’s leading killer, once.

However, before you think I scoff at these world leaders, let me say that they have my utmost respect. After all, they aren’t warning their police forces to be on the lookup for people carrying Farmer’s Almanacs or maps; nor doing their damnedest to discourage travel into or out of the country.

Hmmm. In my recent trip I carried maps. In fact, I drove by the Western White House when the President was in residence, carrying a map of Texas with me.

Please don’t tell on me.

Today is also the start of what could be one of the more interesting political years, if interesting is the word to use. I can’t remember when I’ve felt more urgent about a political race and the potential ramifications associated with the winner. It’s when reading in publications such as the Boston Globe how President Bush is basing his foreign policy on the concept of preemption, and does so openly, that I know I cannot sit passively on the sideline, snapping pretty (or not so pretty) pics, writing equally about travels, poetry, and technology.

However, I’m not going to indulge in rhetorical debates with the warbloggers in our midst, though this does to generate buzz, and perhaps commentary. It’s not that I don’t like buzz or commentary, it’s just that so many of the warbloggers base their arguments on such faulty premises and then use equal amounts of screaming and spit to drown out any disagreement.

For instance, Glenn Reynolds points to a Winds of Change post about how the MEMRI (Middle East Media Research Institute), after careful analysis of Palestinian sermons, have determined that the Palestinians want to destroy us all. According to Professor Reynolds:

THE UNITED STATES SHOULD NOT TRY to play a “neutral arbiter” in the Israeli/Palestinian dispute. We should, in fact, be doing our best to make the Palestinians suffer, because, to put it bluntly, they are our enemies.

Hmm. Of course, we all know that the MEMRI is an impartial source of good intelligence and information, as was discussed in this particularly good Guardian article. The fact that the organization is pro-Israeli has nothing to do with its impartiality as regards to reporting on the Palestinians.

(Rebuttal of Guardian article notwithstanding, the MEMRI makes no secret that its primary purpose is to monitor Arab publications for anti-Israel content.)

Aside from issues of impartiality or not though, I wonder at what the warbloggers and others would suggest we do to the Palestinians? Personally, I’m not sure how much more we can make the Palestinians suffer – they have been in a state of permanent exile for decades, given only a token self-government, and treated by both the international and Arab communities as pretty much second-class citizens. Is it then that Professor Reynolds and the folks at Winds of Change suggest that we do something worse? Or is it that we’re supposed to then support Israel in all of its actions?

Come on guys – I wasn’t born yesterday.

However, not all warbloggers are as equally simplistic. Steven Den Beste wrote an essay recently on white male voters and our electorial system and had some observations to make that were uncomfortably close to my own viewpoint, though our reception of same may differ.

In particular Den Beste writes the following which is an uncanny echo of what was on my mind, as I made my trip cross-country these last few weeks:

Regardless of which candidate ultimately prevails at the convention, this would mean that the intraparty sniping would continue until early August. The winner would then have 3 months to try to heal the divisions inside the party and unify it behind him (or her), while also trying to moderate the party’s message enough to have a chance of appealing to the unaligned middle of the American voters who would be repelled by the extreme messages which had dominated party rhetoric before the convention.

Meanwhile, Bush is not facing any significant opposition for renomination within the Republican party. He’ll do some campaigning during the primary process, but since he is already certain to be the Republican candidate he will campaign for the November election. Instead of tuning his message for the Republican faithful, it will be aimed right at the unaligned middle. It may not even be necessary for him to engage in negative campaigning about the Democrats, because they’ll do him the favor of taking care of it themselves as the Democratic candidates continue sniping at each other.

As long as the Democratic nomination is still in doubt, Democratic candidates won’t be able to begin to moderate their message so as to begin to appeal to centrist voters. And by early August, the centrist consensus may end up as “A plague on all their houses” – especially among white men, who are especially repelled by rhetoric which appeals to the Berkeley-left inside the Democratic party.

We can pretend that there is no doubt that a Democratic candidate will be elected this year all we want, but we have a real battle ahead of us – not helped for the most part by any candidate behavior. Saying this is not being ‘disloyal’ to the cause: it’s being honest, and reflecting now on the problems while we still may, may I want to empathize, be able to bring about a change.

Personally, I am not going to indulge in any of the Berkeley left rhetoric being slung about by one Dem supporter or another – it doesn’t sound all that much different than the silly stuff being trumpeted by most of the warbloggers. However, there are enough interesting facts to write about that will hopefully keep fresh in people’s minds that for all of the ‘centrist’ talk of President Bush (who will be in Missouri on Monday), he and his cabinet are anything but centrist.

However, I am pulling my political discussion into separate weblogs. Two separate weblogs in fact. I find it difficult to indulge in a lengthy essay on the inaccuracy of unemployment counts in telling the true story about unemployment, and how President Bush’s lack of support for extending unemployed benefits continues to hide the true statistics of same, then follow it up with a romp around San Antonio and a photo of a child in a square, playing with pigeons. And I don’t want to knock at the door of a group weblog, such as Open Source Politics and ask if I might join. I’d rather control what I write about, and when I publish it.

Besides, I’m not sure I want to carry ‘Burningbird’ along with me into these discussions.