It is said that Louis XVI, upon ascending the scaffold, tried to give one of his guards a message for the queen, but was met with the following reply: "I am not here to run your errands but to lead you to the guillotine." With that, the shots fired at Lexington in 1775 found their consummation in France's last words to a tyrant in 1793. In each, the commitment to securing the rights, freedoms, and privileges that separate civilization from barbarism entailed acts of unspeakable brutality that, though far from enviable, exist as permanent and profound beacons of light for all who continue to live in the darkness of oppression.
On Thursday, December 27, Benazir Bhutto, twice Prime Minister of Pakistan, was struck down by an assassin's bullet amidst the cries of agony, disbelief, and vengeance from her supporters. For to them, Bhutto was, quite literally, the personification of their hopes for a democratically controlled government in Pakistan; and before their very eyes, both she and their collective vision, were murdered. Their assassins, pusillanimous to the very end, have demonstrated the poverty and deplorability of their aims to the world, and stand for even less after Pakistan was plunged into an abyss whose depths their character was too impoverished to measure.
The people of Pakistan (and all who wish to call themselves Democrats) are now faced with a choice: capitulation or resistance. The latter will necessitate the blood of patriots and tyrants for weeks, months, and years to come; the former will entail the denial of liberty in perpetuity. These are, as Paine reminds us, the times that try men (and women's) souls; and though their place of origin is half-way around the world, the birth pangs of democracy are universal in their plea for solidarity. Their existence depends on the same unwavering commitment to freedom for others that we insist on for ourselves.
Yet, despite the universality of Pakistan's cause, there are those in the United States who insist on widening the gulf that separates the two nation's commitment to democracy. "The problems of Pakistan are of no concern to the United States," they argue. Perhaps, but how might their lives be different had their ancestors not decided to fight and die for freedoms to be enjoyed not by them, but by generations yet unborn? Was the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960's William Lloyd Garrison's business? Was the trial of Calas Voltaire's business? Was the condemnation of Dreyfus Zola's business? No, but at stake was the possibility for the defense of universal values and the very existence of the socio-political freedoms charged with their preservation.
It troubles me that others are troubled by just how pervasive the fight for popular participation in politics can, and indeed should, be. With freedom comes responsibility, and with responsibility comes obligation. Supposedly inalienable rights are not secured by ceasing and desisting; nor will they magically appear for others when we ourselves have turned our backs in indifference; they are fought for and won by ordinary citizens with an unwavering commitment to liberty, preserved by perpetual struggle, and, perhaps most ominously, lost even where thought most secure when the trials and tribulations requisite for their existence are forgotten. The tree of liberty in Pakistan has been christened with the blood of patriots; now it must be refreshed with the blood of a tyrant.
Blessed with the very freedoms for which Pakistan is fighting, and with history as our guide, we are not here to run his errands or support his government; we are here to lead him to the guillotine. That is the Democrat's business.
Monday, December 31, 2007
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
We're So Low and Life Is Brief
Eight days ago I had the privilege of seeing two living legends in concert, these legends of course being Elvis Costello and Bob Dylan. Newcomer Amos Lee opened the night with a decent set of tunes that partially held my attention. Elvis Costello followed with a set list of songs that spanned his catalog of albums. Highlights of his set included Alison, (Angels Wanna Wear My) Red Shoes and the Nick Lowe penned (What’s So Funny ‘Bout) Peace, Love and Understanding. Thirty years after the release of his debut “My Aim Is True”, his voice sounds exactly the same. Dylan followed to close the night with a set list that included a string of hits from his past catalog as well as cuts from “Modern Times”. The highlight of the show, though, would be a surprise encore duet of Tears of Rage with Dylan and Costello on acoustic guitars. This particular performance is significant to avid Dylan fans because it is the first time in about five years that Dylan has played acoustic guitar on tour as well as the first time in over twenty-five years that Dylan has played without a backing band. With the rest of his tour dates wrapped up, and no other duets, it’s safe to say that the audience saw something very special on October 22, 2007 at the Fabulous Fox Theatre. Below is the MP3 of the duet as well as a few other versions of Tears of Rage.Bob Dylan and Elvis Costello - Tears of Rage (October 22, 2007 in St. Louis, MO)
Bob Dylan and The Band - Tears of Rage (The Basement Tapes)
The Band - Tears of Rage (Music From Big Pink)
The Band - Tears of Rage (July 17, 1976 in Washington, D.C.)
Remember don’t steal music; delete these files after your sample. If you like what you’ve heard use the link to amazon and pick up the albums.
Monday, October 29, 2007
Networking
As if the mere utterance of the term were not sufficiently revolting, the free thinker's plight is protracted in choosing the more appropriate subject for his criticisms: those who willingly partake in self-debasement to advance their careers or those who actively encourage the practice to ensure its continuation. To some limited degree, they are indeed two separate categories of the same species of absurdity; the former are merely the youthful reflections of the latter, and the latter are little more than the professional beneficiaries of a collective renunciation of dignity. To my mind, however, such distinctions on the basis of age or social standing are entirely illusory; the opulent prostitute is really no different than the desolate whore. Indeed, like the networker, each must resort to regarding ones' self as a commodity, developing some particular skill set, marketing the resultant package for an irresistible price to the highest bidder, and repeating for as long as food, shelter, and clothing, or -- perhaps more accurately -- fine wines, opulent quarters, and haute couture, may be necessary or desirable.
In the course of their contemptible transactions of moral degeneracy, one can only assume that networkers remain as scornful of their competition as they are oblivious to the destructiveness of their craft. For what can be gained in conversing with like-minded individuals, seemingly willing to offer their guidance and instruction on Monday, who, without compunction, would just as willingly throw you from a cliff to a den of flesh-eating lions on Tuesday, if it meant advancing their own prospects of landing that "dream job?" One could, perhaps, take solace in the knowledge that antiquated notions of "lying," "betrayal," and "backstabbing" have been assuaged by the newly-embraced cultural credo which assures us that such practices are "nothing personal," and instead, "just business." Nevertheless, witless platitudes cannot overcome the laws of gravity nor satiate a pack of hungry lions.
Lest I be criticized for abjuring the virtues of "competition," I can do no better than reference that which competition has created. Peasant cunning might be desirable when one is in need of a loaf of bread, but in positions where right conduct, equity, and -- for good measure -- wisdom, are required, peasants need not apply--or even be eligible to do so; for someone who is so desperate to obtain something that they would participate in such a vile act as self-commodification, not only infects others with their confusion of means and ends, they advertise themselves to all as malleable objects perfectly willing to be manipulated by their superiors at the mere suggestion of monetary gain. When asked to jump from a cliff, they respond with, "I'm already in the air, boss; shall I feed myself to the lions too?" The thought of giving voice to the meddlesome annoyances of one’s conscience, and, insofar as it may impinge on the superior's demands, asking "why," is flatly rejected--if even conceptualized.
Despite far surpassing what Nietzsche saw as “slave morality,” the virtues of networking continue to be heralded on high from the organizers of “career fairs,” representatives of “placement offices,” and the sundry beneficiaries of self-debasement in an office environment near you. “The best way to show the world how great you are is to talk with other people who share your passions, interests, and goals,” they counsel; if you gave each an enema, you could bury them all in the same matchbox at the end of their sad, pathetic lives. For my part, I rest content in knowing that my own life will not be lived on their terms; and that I would rather die as a humble pauper content in himself, than live and work in a sprawling network of rapacious rats. It’s nothing personal, you see; but my life is about far more than “just business.”
In the course of their contemptible transactions of moral degeneracy, one can only assume that networkers remain as scornful of their competition as they are oblivious to the destructiveness of their craft. For what can be gained in conversing with like-minded individuals, seemingly willing to offer their guidance and instruction on Monday, who, without compunction, would just as willingly throw you from a cliff to a den of flesh-eating lions on Tuesday, if it meant advancing their own prospects of landing that "dream job?" One could, perhaps, take solace in the knowledge that antiquated notions of "lying," "betrayal," and "backstabbing" have been assuaged by the newly-embraced cultural credo which assures us that such practices are "nothing personal," and instead, "just business." Nevertheless, witless platitudes cannot overcome the laws of gravity nor satiate a pack of hungry lions.
Lest I be criticized for abjuring the virtues of "competition," I can do no better than reference that which competition has created. Peasant cunning might be desirable when one is in need of a loaf of bread, but in positions where right conduct, equity, and -- for good measure -- wisdom, are required, peasants need not apply--or even be eligible to do so; for someone who is so desperate to obtain something that they would participate in such a vile act as self-commodification, not only infects others with their confusion of means and ends, they advertise themselves to all as malleable objects perfectly willing to be manipulated by their superiors at the mere suggestion of monetary gain. When asked to jump from a cliff, they respond with, "I'm already in the air, boss; shall I feed myself to the lions too?" The thought of giving voice to the meddlesome annoyances of one’s conscience, and, insofar as it may impinge on the superior's demands, asking "why," is flatly rejected--if even conceptualized.
Despite far surpassing what Nietzsche saw as “slave morality,” the virtues of networking continue to be heralded on high from the organizers of “career fairs,” representatives of “placement offices,” and the sundry beneficiaries of self-debasement in an office environment near you. “The best way to show the world how great you are is to talk with other people who share your passions, interests, and goals,” they counsel; if you gave each an enema, you could bury them all in the same matchbox at the end of their sad, pathetic lives. For my part, I rest content in knowing that my own life will not be lived on their terms; and that I would rather die as a humble pauper content in himself, than live and work in a sprawling network of rapacious rats. It’s nothing personal, you see; but my life is about far more than “just business.”
Saturday, October 13, 2007
Le Monde des Faux Artistes
I've recently returned from an aborted sojourn into the pretentious world of "art for the sake of art." My reasons, I admit, were largely self-serving and my intentions were wholly lascivious. Looking beyond my bookshelf for entertainment, I wondered whether the outside world had something to offer. As luck would have it, my former French instructor had had the good fortune of having three of her photographs (I still cringe at the thought of photography praised as "art") included in the opening of "3-Way," a Central West End gallery, named, so it seems, for the local's favorite pastime. Despite being located in the veritable asshole of the community -- which, one would think, would be quite a popular destination among its residents -- I decided to throw caution to the wind, and pay a visit to le monde des faux artistes.
From the moment I turned left onto Euclid, I immediately regretted my decision; and not for the reasons that those just looking to be offended might think. No, my rapidly escalating rage had nothing to do with the sights and sounds of frolicsome couples prancing down the sidewalk or having to artfully dodge car doors being flung open by oblivious socialites (actually, that does piss me off enormously); it was the totality of being immersed in a community whose seeming raison d'etre is pretentious escapism.
To be fair, this phenomena is in no way unique to the Central West End; a community which, itself, seems to be a microcosm of contemporary society--if only with a bit more flair. In the grand scheme of things, what is the difference between parking one’s ass on the couch, popping open a Coors, and watching a football game, and parading it around to art galleries, sipping Crystale, and trying to impress as many people as is humanly possible? I suppose the second example of hedonism at least provides some semblance of exercise -- a much needed activity for those in either category -- but it far surpasses the first in its appeal to solipsism. I have nothing but contempt for both extremes of such profound self-indulgence, but the second seems to me to be far more deserving of criticism. For it proceeds from what it regards as an irrefutable position: “the beauty and meaning of our indulgence is only appreciable to those capable of finding its beauty and meaning for themselves.” (This, incidentally, is the circular logic upon which all of Impressionism is based. Attack it as a ridiculous attempt at creativity, and you are dismissed as a philistine; praise it as a brilliant effort of originality, and you are praised as a patrician.) For those of us with the intellectual courage to call a spade a spade and a charlatan a charlatan, little difficulty is expended in dismissing such pathetic attempts at self-aggrandizement as entirely unworthy of one’s time.
With that in mind, I promptly turned my back on a culture which had turned its own to reason. How magnificent it might have been to be received by le monde des faux artistes! We could have tried to impress one another by seeing who could offer the more profound commentary on a picture of the French countryside or an epileptic’s depiction of a starry night. But alas, reason and dignity compelled me to pull an illegal U-turn, and high tail it out of the black hole of pretentiousness. As appealing as its allure might sound to some, I remain unwilling to debase myself quite that far, even if it means forgoing the self-bestowed gratification which “art for the sake of art” is uniquely capable of providing.
Sincerely,
From the moment I turned left onto Euclid, I immediately regretted my decision; and not for the reasons that those just looking to be offended might think. No, my rapidly escalating rage had nothing to do with the sights and sounds of frolicsome couples prancing down the sidewalk or having to artfully dodge car doors being flung open by oblivious socialites (actually, that does piss me off enormously); it was the totality of being immersed in a community whose seeming raison d'etre is pretentious escapism.
To be fair, this phenomena is in no way unique to the Central West End; a community which, itself, seems to be a microcosm of contemporary society--if only with a bit more flair. In the grand scheme of things, what is the difference between parking one’s ass on the couch, popping open a Coors, and watching a football game, and parading it around to art galleries, sipping Crystale, and trying to impress as many people as is humanly possible? I suppose the second example of hedonism at least provides some semblance of exercise -- a much needed activity for those in either category -- but it far surpasses the first in its appeal to solipsism. I have nothing but contempt for both extremes of such profound self-indulgence, but the second seems to me to be far more deserving of criticism. For it proceeds from what it regards as an irrefutable position: “the beauty and meaning of our indulgence is only appreciable to those capable of finding its beauty and meaning for themselves.” (This, incidentally, is the circular logic upon which all of Impressionism is based. Attack it as a ridiculous attempt at creativity, and you are dismissed as a philistine; praise it as a brilliant effort of originality, and you are praised as a patrician.) For those of us with the intellectual courage to call a spade a spade and a charlatan a charlatan, little difficulty is expended in dismissing such pathetic attempts at self-aggrandizement as entirely unworthy of one’s time.
With that in mind, I promptly turned my back on a culture which had turned its own to reason. How magnificent it might have been to be received by le monde des faux artistes! We could have tried to impress one another by seeing who could offer the more profound commentary on a picture of the French countryside or an epileptic’s depiction of a starry night. But alas, reason and dignity compelled me to pull an illegal U-turn, and high tail it out of the black hole of pretentiousness. As appealing as its allure might sound to some, I remain unwilling to debase myself quite that far, even if it means forgoing the self-bestowed gratification which “art for the sake of art” is uniquely capable of providing.
Sincerely,
Philistine
Tuesday, October 2, 2007
Hallelujah, Hall of Fame
The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame recently announced the 2008 induction nominees. They include Afrika Bambaataa, The Beastie Boys, Chic, Leonard Cohen, The Dave Clark Five, Madonna, John Mellencamp, Donna Summer and The Ventures. Today I want to spotlight Leonard Cohen’s fine rock and roll contributions. Born in Quebec in 1934, Cohen first reached prominence as a poet in the early to mid-sixties with the publications of The Favourite Game, Flowers for Hitler and Beautiful Losers. He came to the United States in 1967 where he caught the attention of John Hammond who, of course, “discovered” Bob Dylan, Bruce Springsteen and Billie Holiday. He released a series of acclaimed albums starting with Songs of Leonard Cohen in 1967 and ending with Death of a Ladies Man in 1977. His work in the 1980’s produced the frequently covered “Hallelujah”. Cohen still remains active as a musician and can more-than-likely count on his name soon gracing the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame inductee list. Below are a few selections from Leonard Cohen’s expansive catalog of great music.Suzanne - Songs of Leonard Cohen
http://rapidshare.com/files/59878559/01-Suzanne.mp3.html
So Long, Marianne - Songs of Leonard Cohen
http://rapidshare.com/files/59879953/05-So_Long__Marianne.mp3.html
Chelsea Hotel #2 - New Skin for the Old Ceremony
http://rapidshare.com/files/59878995/09-Chelsea_Hotel__2.mp3.html
Take This Longing - New Skin for the Old Ceremony
http://rapidshare.com/files/59879484/10-Take_This_Longing.mp3.html
Don't Go Home With Your Hard-On - Death of a Ladies Man
http://rapidshare.com/files/59880599/06_Don_t_Go_Home_With_Your_Hard-On.mp3.html
Remember don’t steal music; delete these files after your sample. If you like what you’ve heard use the link to amazon and pick up the albums.
http://www.amazon.com
Friday, September 28, 2007
Notes on Nash
Born in Blackpool, England, Graham Nash is one of those overlooked musicians of the 1960’s and 1970’s. Nash’s original claim to fame was with the Hollies. A group he and his schoolmate Allan Clarke formed in the early 60’s. The Hollies soon had a hit single with “Bus Stop” in 1966. The album “Evolution”, their answer to Sgt. Pepper hit shelves in 1967. But, Nash soon became unhappy with the musical direction of the group (an album consisting entirely of Bob Dylan covers) and left the group in 1968. Nash would soon join ex-Byrd David Crosby and ex-Buffalo Springfield member Stephen Stills to form CSN. After Apple Records passed on signing the trio, they found a home at Atlantic and released their self-titled debut in 1969. “Déjà vu” followed in 1970 with Neil Young added to the lineup. Prominent, Nash tracks from the two albums included “Marrakesh Express”, “Our House”, and “Teach Your Children”. After the success of the Déjà vu, Crosby, Stills, Nash, and Young released solo efforts. Nash’s “Songs for Beginners” album, released in 1971, had no shortage of talent, with the likes of Dave Mason, Neil Young, David Crosby, and members of the Grateful Dead all lending a hand. Songs like “Military Madness” and “Chicago” made their way into the listeners’ conscience. Some feel his 1974 follow-up “Wild Tales” falls short of “Song for Beginners”. But, I believe that “Wild Tales” is perhaps a more complete album. With that said, below are some links to sample some Graham Nash contributions. The Hollies - Carrie Anne
CSN - Marrakesh Express
CSNY - Teach Your Children
Graham Nash - Military Madness
Graham Nash - Wild Tales
Graham Nash - On the Line
Remember don’t steal music; delete these files after your sample. If you like what you’ve heard use the link to amazon and pick up the albums.
A Watershed Week for American-Iranian Relations
On Tuesday, the United States Senate passed a non-binding measure to add the Iranian Revolutionary Guard to the State Department’s list of “foreign terrorist organizations”; this just one day after the Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, spoke to a hostile assembly of faculty and students at Columbia University. Not to be outshone by such magnificent displays of histrionics and incivility, President Bush, the consummate paragon of each, delivered a tangential address to the United Nations General Assembly, and reassured the country that its "childrens [sic] is learning." This week's events mark a potential watershed for the future of American-Iranian relations and, considered in relation to one another, suggest some rather frightening prospects for the development of peace between the two nations.
The central question fuelling the debate is how best to stop a country led by a religious fundamentalist intent on the development and proliferation of nuclear energy, from dominating Middle Eastern geo-political affairs; it should come as no surprise that the question is being asked on either side. What is rather surprising, is the degree to which all notions of truth, justice, and equity have been abandoned in the United States’ pursuit of global dominance; in fairness, a notion shocking only to s/he who has failed to peruse a newspaper in the last fifty years. There is, then, an historical precedent for beating the societal war drum loud enough to frighten the ignorant majority, which remains but a meddlesome annoyance to those who have heard its siren songs before. A wise man once reminded us of an old saying in Tennessee -- one he knew to exist in Texas, probably in Tennessee -- that said, "fool me once, shame on -- shame on you. Fool me -- you can't get fooled again." Despite a semi-literate command of his mother tongue, the idiot-savant's point is more or less clear: being tricked into supporting a war with no other purpose than imperialistic expansion on the pretext of "fighting terrorism" and "protecting the homeland" is one thing; mistakes happen, no one is perfect, and few of us even had the sense to express some degree of doubt about claims the rest of the world knew to be false. But to fall victim to a similar -- even identical -- effort to control the public mind to justify a war against a non-enemy, would just be shameful. With that in mind, it saddens me to be forced to proclaim "Shame on us!" Now that I have not so subtly accused my fellow citizens of once again gulping from the chalice of deception, I suppose some degree of qualification is in order.
The most well-known (and frequently referenced) charges against the Iranian President are that he regards the Holocaust as a "myth," and that the state of Israel should be "wiped off the map." These positions are certainly not benign and, if accurate, deserve nothing but categorical censure. I am of the opinion, however, that in light of the available evidence, their accuracy --both in and out of context -- must be accepted with some degree of skepticism.
A point of departure as suitable as any, is to make the obvious observation that translation necessarily entails interpretation; and in contexts which involve passionate rhetoric, the all-important emphasis on literacy is frequently neglected. My knowledge of Farsi is admittedly non-existent, but in each of the independent translations that I've encountered, the word "map" is conspicuous only in its absence. In fact, the translations arrive at a relative consensus, contending that Ahmadinejad's remarks are best expressed as, "the Zionist regime in Israel must vanish from the page of time." This is indeed a far cry from the virtually uncontested translation which connotes state-sponsored genocide and the destruction of a sovereign nation-state. His remarks are ambiguous; I'll be the first to admit that. Nevertheless, it seems at least possible that they may be interpreted more accurately to mean that the state of Israel is an oppressive and possibly illegitimate regime, and is responsible for inciting political unrest in the region; to the extent that any of that might present a problem, emendations to (not necessarily the annihilation of) the state of Israel could be seen as desirable.
Ahmadinejad's remarks regarding the Holocaust tell a similar tale. I am not aware, in fact, of any documentary or audio-visual evidence which attests to his use of the word "myth" in a description of the existence of the Holocaust. Based on his most recent remarks on the subject at Columbia, his principle point seems to be that though the Holocaust occurred and six million Jewish human beings were murdered, its legacy should not serve as a modern-day justification for the brutal and oppressive policies of Palestinian subjugation at the hands of Israel and its stalwart patron, the United States. This is in no way to challenge verifiable fact; merely to question the manner in which its consequences have been appropriated. This position is surprisingly difficult to refute, because, in light of the historical record, it is essentially correct.
The difference between reality and perception, though, is evidently rather unimportant to such exemplars of journalistic integrity as the New York Times, the Washington Post, the National Broadcasting Company (NBC), Columbia Broadcast System (CBS), Cable News Network (CNN), the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), and, inexplicably, Fox News Channel (FNC). Whether or not Ahmadinejad's comments were translated accurately, interpreted in context, or even deliberately taken out of context doesn't really seem to matter to any of them, because each continually reference that which is demonstrably inaccurate. Some have graciously acknowledged their oversight -- though refused to offer a retraction -- and others, namely FNC, continue to refer to it as unequivocal truth. (This is the same conglomerate, incidentally, which left virtually unchallenged the Bush Administration's initial charges that Iraq possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction.) So, what seems to be a somewhat dubious series of quotations continues to be passed around the societal circle like a propagandistic prostitute. Divisive and politically charged as one's choice of media outlet may be, when it comes to independent investigation of alleged truth, i.e. journalism, our supposedly free press bears a striking resemblance to an Orwellian Ministry of Truth. Perhaps the pompous publishers of "all the news that's fit to print" have more in common with "the most powerful name in news" than initially meets the eye.
For my part, I merely seek truth; unlike some, I don't claim, nor do I wish, to have a monopoly on it. I am, therefore, reluctant to take seriously the charges of hostile Iranian nuclear weapons proliferation. The Director of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Muhammad ElBaradei, has spoken out on this issue and concluded that, as yet, "there's no evidence of ongoing prohibited nuclear or nuclear-related activities in Iran," nor is there "any concrete evidence that the Iran program is being weaponized." Under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NNPT), Iran is permitted to have facilities for civilian nuclear power; yet the United States, itself in violation of the NNPT and the only nation to ever use nuclear weapons against a civilian population, contends that Iran's right to develop nuclear energy for purportedly industrial purposes, is simply unacceptable. To translate, an enrichment program -- which is not yet fully operational -- to help a fledgling nation enter the modern world, is a sinister threat to world peace and must be eliminated. To this end, the United States continues to "keep all options on the table," with regard to Iran, including those like the "use or threat of force," which violate international law. Apparently, it is perfectly acceptable for one country to issue actual threats, but completely out of bounds for another to be perceived as a potential threat.
This is nothing less than a wholesale endorsement of the doctrine of preventive war, not to be confused with preemptive war, which aims to quell an existing threat actually in existence. The distinction between the two is incredibly significant; the former sanctions death and destruction on the basis of perception; the latter requires credible evidence on the basis of reality. The difference is quite literally a matter of life and death, but is evidently trivial to anyone who aspires to, or wishes to remain in, elected office.
Tuesday's vote in the Senate is an alarming reminder of just how popular the cavalier policy of "preventive war" is on both sides of the political spectrum, and just how close it has brought us to armed conflict with Iran. The resolution's supporters reference US military officials' allegations that the Revolutionary Guard is arming Shiite militias in Iraq, and supplying sophisticated roadside bombs used to kill US soldiers; the veracity of their claims is unknown. Similarly, and despite all evidence to the contrary, the Bush Administration accuses Iran of seeking to build an atomic bomb under the cover of a civilian nuclear program. In light of the voluminous litany of misinformation offered as truth in the recent past, why should anyone believe anything that either has to say? If one is prepared to grant the plausibility of what seems to be a truism, is it too much to ask to remain reticent to accept the continued attempts to portray Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as the Islamic progeny of Ghengis Khan, Adolf Hitler, and Josef Stalin? I harbor no love for Ahmadinejad or Iran, and given credible evidence, am quite willing to add the Iranian President's name to the barbarous triumvirate of evil. However, I reject entirely the notion of doing so simply because it dovetails nicely with governmental policy. I have long since become sick of the meddlesome sirens emanating from White House Press Briefings. Though I can't claim to have lived long enough to remember, the historical record attests that their themes have been relatively consistent since the end of the second World War.
Any foreign political leader who challenges the United States' authority and presents an obstacle to its imperial ambitions, is automatically held to be a brutal, oppressive, and "evil" dictator who is just itching to kill every man, woman, and child who lives in freedom. The intent should be all too obvious; when military action cannot be justified on the basis of fact, it becomes necessary to frighten the population into supporting it on the basis of fiction; for that is the only way the obstacle may be eliminated.
When I was seven years old, I thought that a monster lived under my bed and threatened to harm me in my sleep; by the grand old age of ten, I had discovered that my fear was illusory. Why must so many otherwise rational people revert back to their childhood at the mere suggestion that an "evil" man in a far away land might somehow threaten them? (The fact that a man whom much of the world regards as the greatest danger to international security lives in their own country, and is, in fact, their President, is seemingly much more frightening!) Why must they continue to repeat the very same mistakes that the most elementary standards of intellectual competence could prevent? As long as these questions remain unanswered and the themes they address unresolved, we will continue our failure to heed the lessons of our own history. This is a choice involving life or death for some, and, quite possibly annihilation or survival for all. Shame on us if we choose incorrectly.
The central question fuelling the debate is how best to stop a country led by a religious fundamentalist intent on the development and proliferation of nuclear energy, from dominating Middle Eastern geo-political affairs; it should come as no surprise that the question is being asked on either side. What is rather surprising, is the degree to which all notions of truth, justice, and equity have been abandoned in the United States’ pursuit of global dominance; in fairness, a notion shocking only to s/he who has failed to peruse a newspaper in the last fifty years. There is, then, an historical precedent for beating the societal war drum loud enough to frighten the ignorant majority, which remains but a meddlesome annoyance to those who have heard its siren songs before. A wise man once reminded us of an old saying in Tennessee -- one he knew to exist in Texas, probably in Tennessee -- that said, "fool me once, shame on -- shame on you. Fool me -- you can't get fooled again." Despite a semi-literate command of his mother tongue, the idiot-savant's point is more or less clear: being tricked into supporting a war with no other purpose than imperialistic expansion on the pretext of "fighting terrorism" and "protecting the homeland" is one thing; mistakes happen, no one is perfect, and few of us even had the sense to express some degree of doubt about claims the rest of the world knew to be false. But to fall victim to a similar -- even identical -- effort to control the public mind to justify a war against a non-enemy, would just be shameful. With that in mind, it saddens me to be forced to proclaim "Shame on us!" Now that I have not so subtly accused my fellow citizens of once again gulping from the chalice of deception, I suppose some degree of qualification is in order.
The most well-known (and frequently referenced) charges against the Iranian President are that he regards the Holocaust as a "myth," and that the state of Israel should be "wiped off the map." These positions are certainly not benign and, if accurate, deserve nothing but categorical censure. I am of the opinion, however, that in light of the available evidence, their accuracy --both in and out of context -- must be accepted with some degree of skepticism.
A point of departure as suitable as any, is to make the obvious observation that translation necessarily entails interpretation; and in contexts which involve passionate rhetoric, the all-important emphasis on literacy is frequently neglected. My knowledge of Farsi is admittedly non-existent, but in each of the independent translations that I've encountered, the word "map" is conspicuous only in its absence. In fact, the translations arrive at a relative consensus, contending that Ahmadinejad's remarks are best expressed as, "the Zionist regime in Israel must vanish from the page of time." This is indeed a far cry from the virtually uncontested translation which connotes state-sponsored genocide and the destruction of a sovereign nation-state. His remarks are ambiguous; I'll be the first to admit that. Nevertheless, it seems at least possible that they may be interpreted more accurately to mean that the state of Israel is an oppressive and possibly illegitimate regime, and is responsible for inciting political unrest in the region; to the extent that any of that might present a problem, emendations to (not necessarily the annihilation of) the state of Israel could be seen as desirable.
Ahmadinejad's remarks regarding the Holocaust tell a similar tale. I am not aware, in fact, of any documentary or audio-visual evidence which attests to his use of the word "myth" in a description of the existence of the Holocaust. Based on his most recent remarks on the subject at Columbia, his principle point seems to be that though the Holocaust occurred and six million Jewish human beings were murdered, its legacy should not serve as a modern-day justification for the brutal and oppressive policies of Palestinian subjugation at the hands of Israel and its stalwart patron, the United States. This is in no way to challenge verifiable fact; merely to question the manner in which its consequences have been appropriated. This position is surprisingly difficult to refute, because, in light of the historical record, it is essentially correct.
The difference between reality and perception, though, is evidently rather unimportant to such exemplars of journalistic integrity as the New York Times, the Washington Post, the National Broadcasting Company (NBC), Columbia Broadcast System (CBS), Cable News Network (CNN), the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), and, inexplicably, Fox News Channel (FNC). Whether or not Ahmadinejad's comments were translated accurately, interpreted in context, or even deliberately taken out of context doesn't really seem to matter to any of them, because each continually reference that which is demonstrably inaccurate. Some have graciously acknowledged their oversight -- though refused to offer a retraction -- and others, namely FNC, continue to refer to it as unequivocal truth. (This is the same conglomerate, incidentally, which left virtually unchallenged the Bush Administration's initial charges that Iraq possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction.) So, what seems to be a somewhat dubious series of quotations continues to be passed around the societal circle like a propagandistic prostitute. Divisive and politically charged as one's choice of media outlet may be, when it comes to independent investigation of alleged truth, i.e. journalism, our supposedly free press bears a striking resemblance to an Orwellian Ministry of Truth. Perhaps the pompous publishers of "all the news that's fit to print" have more in common with "the most powerful name in news" than initially meets the eye.
For my part, I merely seek truth; unlike some, I don't claim, nor do I wish, to have a monopoly on it. I am, therefore, reluctant to take seriously the charges of hostile Iranian nuclear weapons proliferation. The Director of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Muhammad ElBaradei, has spoken out on this issue and concluded that, as yet, "there's no evidence of ongoing prohibited nuclear or nuclear-related activities in Iran," nor is there "any concrete evidence that the Iran program is being weaponized." Under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NNPT), Iran is permitted to have facilities for civilian nuclear power; yet the United States, itself in violation of the NNPT and the only nation to ever use nuclear weapons against a civilian population, contends that Iran's right to develop nuclear energy for purportedly industrial purposes, is simply unacceptable. To translate, an enrichment program -- which is not yet fully operational -- to help a fledgling nation enter the modern world, is a sinister threat to world peace and must be eliminated. To this end, the United States continues to "keep all options on the table," with regard to Iran, including those like the "use or threat of force," which violate international law. Apparently, it is perfectly acceptable for one country to issue actual threats, but completely out of bounds for another to be perceived as a potential threat.
This is nothing less than a wholesale endorsement of the doctrine of preventive war, not to be confused with preemptive war, which aims to quell an existing threat actually in existence. The distinction between the two is incredibly significant; the former sanctions death and destruction on the basis of perception; the latter requires credible evidence on the basis of reality. The difference is quite literally a matter of life and death, but is evidently trivial to anyone who aspires to, or wishes to remain in, elected office.
Tuesday's vote in the Senate is an alarming reminder of just how popular the cavalier policy of "preventive war" is on both sides of the political spectrum, and just how close it has brought us to armed conflict with Iran. The resolution's supporters reference US military officials' allegations that the Revolutionary Guard is arming Shiite militias in Iraq, and supplying sophisticated roadside bombs used to kill US soldiers; the veracity of their claims is unknown. Similarly, and despite all evidence to the contrary, the Bush Administration accuses Iran of seeking to build an atomic bomb under the cover of a civilian nuclear program. In light of the voluminous litany of misinformation offered as truth in the recent past, why should anyone believe anything that either has to say? If one is prepared to grant the plausibility of what seems to be a truism, is it too much to ask to remain reticent to accept the continued attempts to portray Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as the Islamic progeny of Ghengis Khan, Adolf Hitler, and Josef Stalin? I harbor no love for Ahmadinejad or Iran, and given credible evidence, am quite willing to add the Iranian President's name to the barbarous triumvirate of evil. However, I reject entirely the notion of doing so simply because it dovetails nicely with governmental policy. I have long since become sick of the meddlesome sirens emanating from White House Press Briefings. Though I can't claim to have lived long enough to remember, the historical record attests that their themes have been relatively consistent since the end of the second World War.
Any foreign political leader who challenges the United States' authority and presents an obstacle to its imperial ambitions, is automatically held to be a brutal, oppressive, and "evil" dictator who is just itching to kill every man, woman, and child who lives in freedom. The intent should be all too obvious; when military action cannot be justified on the basis of fact, it becomes necessary to frighten the population into supporting it on the basis of fiction; for that is the only way the obstacle may be eliminated.
When I was seven years old, I thought that a monster lived under my bed and threatened to harm me in my sleep; by the grand old age of ten, I had discovered that my fear was illusory. Why must so many otherwise rational people revert back to their childhood at the mere suggestion that an "evil" man in a far away land might somehow threaten them? (The fact that a man whom much of the world regards as the greatest danger to international security lives in their own country, and is, in fact, their President, is seemingly much more frightening!) Why must they continue to repeat the very same mistakes that the most elementary standards of intellectual competence could prevent? As long as these questions remain unanswered and the themes they address unresolved, we will continue our failure to heed the lessons of our own history. This is a choice involving life or death for some, and, quite possibly annihilation or survival for all. Shame on us if we choose incorrectly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
