Nelson Lowhim's Blog, page 118
July 13, 2015
Torture, Another look
So, dear reader, I want to revisit the whole torture debate. I originally wrote about it here. Now, being prescient can stroke one's ego, and I wrote about torture before the Senate and the CIA had their little spat. Not a hard thing to predict, not when our policy and our view on the other (and our fellow Americans) is that they deserve what they get, the law, the morals, the constitution be damned. This is nothing more than anti-Americanism at its finest. Par for course and as usual I would never remain silent on such topics.
I found it funny that at the time I wrote on the matter, most people thought things were settled, that Obama had put an end to the worst excesses of the Bush's hapless foreign policy. And so it goes. To say that we tortured some folks is nothing short of a cover up. [1] That no one at the top was ever, and will ever, be taken to court over this just goes to highlight the iniquities of our system. So let me add something else to the current torture debate:
That there seems to be some backlash against torture is great. But already it seems to resemble something like a tribal one, or mob reaction: that the focus is on merely the CIA agents and what they did (ostensibly without informing Bush and the leading Republicans/Democracts that they were doing specifically what they did) is already troubling to me. [2]
It takes the Abu Ghraib tact and doesn’t do what is needed: completely re evaluate the system from which this stems (at home and abroad). Note that these members aren’t the only ones that commit torture in the States. Daily 1000s of prisoners are tortured (kept in isolation—torture, by any sane person’s definition) within our borders. Many think that’s fine as those are “criminals”. It’s my unsubstantiated view that it’s this same meme that allows people to see “terrorists” as deserving of worse (more of “it’s needed” platitudes) and even more so when you throw in the idea that this will save lives. [3]
Note that I know that I myself am on thin ice, intellectually speaking, since the main reason in the past I’ve been against torture is that it doesn’t work. Pure and simple. But that’s weak in the sense that I’m basing this on a calculation of efficacy [4].
Let me entertain another view on torture, though I understand that there is less of a standing here: that those methods of torture leak into a society making it inherently worse and certainly less democratic [5]. Or through empathy, a very strong emotion, from others in the world and those within out ranks, we will weaken our own stance, create more enemies and people unwilling to work with us. [6]
It is here that one must either say: that’s why we have values and stick to them. But that’s not the world we work in, isn't it? And that’s not, no matter what you think, how humans or any human institution can be: without humanity. For it will make mistakes; you cannot know beforehand if it’s a mistake, so by accepting torture, you know you’re going to torture some innocents. This is why one needs values, as metaphysical as that may sound. [7]
This is a topic that is certainly hard to tackle, but that's my final point. Any holes that you see and can take apart? Please add them in the comments.
[1] Again, like most things that I've worked on, like the Iraq war and so on, the debate is weak at best. What you have is weak doves saying something like we need to stop it because we look bad, while those on the right claim that they need to be around incase we get the ticking time bomb scenario. In other words, we've stopped it for some time and it won't take much for us to pick it back up again. I'll say nothing of how we torture our own prisoners (usually political) to keep them docile (the one thing that torture does work for: that it silences the dissent in any given group).
[2] Note again that what we have is the emotional reaction, the tribal reaction which leads to no laws adjusted to make sure this doesn't happen in the future, which means the lawmakers want this to happen again in the future. And it also makes sure that we blame a handful of bad apples and can go on in some childish belief in the self. What ends up happening is that there will be two laws, again. For those who can (the powerful) wrap themselves in State power and can torture, and the rest of us.
[3] Note that when torture is used for political purposes it's usually best when used to silence (doesn't always work, as it's a proven fact that Al Qaeda grew from Egypt's torture chambers) as well as when it's used to extort false confessions for propaganda purposes.
Is torture something that's built into the systems of nation-states? One doesn't have to look hard to find it in many societies, shouldn't the nations of laws help to defeat it in all forms? As for ourselves, one can see that though our founders very much based our nation on the ideals of the enlightenment (some of them, at any rate), it didn't take long for things like torture to take hold. Slavery being the biggest torture system ever. And how did they squeeze such good results from these victims? Torture. And back then, as now, the meme that the torture was justified, that these people were not people was used, as the same excuse is used nowadays (note that back then the threat of another Haiti, the threat of a slave revolt also allowed for much torture, to say nothing of profits).
[4] And someone will always say that we have a way to make it work, won't they? Also it's the same rubric as someone saying: it’s one bad person versus the possible deaths of man good citizens, thus the world should not worry about the “negative” charge. Or even a “GDP” sense, which claims GDP is above all matters—in this case said terrorist is neg GDP, destroys the economy, innocents are positive GDP, why calculate anything else as torture would save these lives?
[5] Those who do it will bear some cost and spread it to society; of course, there’s also the argument that these torturers, like soldiers are in many ways sacrificing themselves or bearing a burden for the greater good.
[6] This takes something of an efficacy argument, that we can never win the war for hearts and minds with torture, but again will become something of an easy tradeoff, especially with the ticking time bomb scenario that torture proponents so want to tout.
[7] For a second, let's regard the fact that we need laws that are humane, and that, on top of that, we need laws that will overcome the very idea of efficacy. As for hearts and minds, I think those in favor of torture would wish that all people who complain about torture are making the world worse by informing our enemies of what has been done.
Now, perhaps you want to live in—Republicans think this, it would seem—a world where all of this is kept strictly silent. Stalinism, it would seem, has many adherents. Torture, “purify”, then kill, erase, repeat. Let’s leave aside this way of living as a society and at least agree that these who espouse this sort of view have no moral leg to stand upon: that they know this (fear of backlash means that they cannot argue their own position, that they understand its inherent weaknesses) and that they want nothing close to a democratic discussion on the matter.
Enjoyed the writing? Please share it via email, facebook, twitter, or one of the buttons below (or through some other method you prefer). Thank you! As always, here's the tip jar. Throw some change in there and help cover the costs!
Then Subscribe to my mailing list* indicates requiredEmail Address * First Name Last Name Email Format htmltextmobile
I found it funny that at the time I wrote on the matter, most people thought things were settled, that Obama had put an end to the worst excesses of the Bush's hapless foreign policy. And so it goes. To say that we tortured some folks is nothing short of a cover up. [1] That no one at the top was ever, and will ever, be taken to court over this just goes to highlight the iniquities of our system. So let me add something else to the current torture debate:
That there seems to be some backlash against torture is great. But already it seems to resemble something like a tribal one, or mob reaction: that the focus is on merely the CIA agents and what they did (ostensibly without informing Bush and the leading Republicans/Democracts that they were doing specifically what they did) is already troubling to me. [2]
It takes the Abu Ghraib tact and doesn’t do what is needed: completely re evaluate the system from which this stems (at home and abroad). Note that these members aren’t the only ones that commit torture in the States. Daily 1000s of prisoners are tortured (kept in isolation—torture, by any sane person’s definition) within our borders. Many think that’s fine as those are “criminals”. It’s my unsubstantiated view that it’s this same meme that allows people to see “terrorists” as deserving of worse (more of “it’s needed” platitudes) and even more so when you throw in the idea that this will save lives. [3]
Note that I know that I myself am on thin ice, intellectually speaking, since the main reason in the past I’ve been against torture is that it doesn’t work. Pure and simple. But that’s weak in the sense that I’m basing this on a calculation of efficacy [4].
Let me entertain another view on torture, though I understand that there is less of a standing here: that those methods of torture leak into a society making it inherently worse and certainly less democratic [5]. Or through empathy, a very strong emotion, from others in the world and those within out ranks, we will weaken our own stance, create more enemies and people unwilling to work with us. [6]
It is here that one must either say: that’s why we have values and stick to them. But that’s not the world we work in, isn't it? And that’s not, no matter what you think, how humans or any human institution can be: without humanity. For it will make mistakes; you cannot know beforehand if it’s a mistake, so by accepting torture, you know you’re going to torture some innocents. This is why one needs values, as metaphysical as that may sound. [7]
This is a topic that is certainly hard to tackle, but that's my final point. Any holes that you see and can take apart? Please add them in the comments.
[1] Again, like most things that I've worked on, like the Iraq war and so on, the debate is weak at best. What you have is weak doves saying something like we need to stop it because we look bad, while those on the right claim that they need to be around incase we get the ticking time bomb scenario. In other words, we've stopped it for some time and it won't take much for us to pick it back up again. I'll say nothing of how we torture our own prisoners (usually political) to keep them docile (the one thing that torture does work for: that it silences the dissent in any given group).
[2] Note again that what we have is the emotional reaction, the tribal reaction which leads to no laws adjusted to make sure this doesn't happen in the future, which means the lawmakers want this to happen again in the future. And it also makes sure that we blame a handful of bad apples and can go on in some childish belief in the self. What ends up happening is that there will be two laws, again. For those who can (the powerful) wrap themselves in State power and can torture, and the rest of us.
[3] Note that when torture is used for political purposes it's usually best when used to silence (doesn't always work, as it's a proven fact that Al Qaeda grew from Egypt's torture chambers) as well as when it's used to extort false confessions for propaganda purposes.
Is torture something that's built into the systems of nation-states? One doesn't have to look hard to find it in many societies, shouldn't the nations of laws help to defeat it in all forms? As for ourselves, one can see that though our founders very much based our nation on the ideals of the enlightenment (some of them, at any rate), it didn't take long for things like torture to take hold. Slavery being the biggest torture system ever. And how did they squeeze such good results from these victims? Torture. And back then, as now, the meme that the torture was justified, that these people were not people was used, as the same excuse is used nowadays (note that back then the threat of another Haiti, the threat of a slave revolt also allowed for much torture, to say nothing of profits).
[4] And someone will always say that we have a way to make it work, won't they? Also it's the same rubric as someone saying: it’s one bad person versus the possible deaths of man good citizens, thus the world should not worry about the “negative” charge. Or even a “GDP” sense, which claims GDP is above all matters—in this case said terrorist is neg GDP, destroys the economy, innocents are positive GDP, why calculate anything else as torture would save these lives?
[5] Those who do it will bear some cost and spread it to society; of course, there’s also the argument that these torturers, like soldiers are in many ways sacrificing themselves or bearing a burden for the greater good.
[6] This takes something of an efficacy argument, that we can never win the war for hearts and minds with torture, but again will become something of an easy tradeoff, especially with the ticking time bomb scenario that torture proponents so want to tout.
[7] For a second, let's regard the fact that we need laws that are humane, and that, on top of that, we need laws that will overcome the very idea of efficacy. As for hearts and minds, I think those in favor of torture would wish that all people who complain about torture are making the world worse by informing our enemies of what has been done.
Now, perhaps you want to live in—Republicans think this, it would seem—a world where all of this is kept strictly silent. Stalinism, it would seem, has many adherents. Torture, “purify”, then kill, erase, repeat. Let’s leave aside this way of living as a society and at least agree that these who espouse this sort of view have no moral leg to stand upon: that they know this (fear of backlash means that they cannot argue their own position, that they understand its inherent weaknesses) and that they want nothing close to a democratic discussion on the matter.
Enjoyed the writing? Please share it via email, facebook, twitter, or one of the buttons below (or through some other method you prefer). Thank you! As always, here's the tip jar. Throw some change in there and help cover the costs!
Then Subscribe to my mailing list* indicates requiredEmail Address * First Name Last Name Email Format htmltextmobile
July 11, 2015
Torture, quick notes/rant
I will have another note on the torture debate and the possibly different than an efficacy debate to be had on the matter. But first, something else. I’ve just read a short interview by James Mitchell. “Fuck you, pay me.” Isn’t this basically what James Mitchell is saying? That he’s protected says something, doesn’t it? He knows this, and that shows from what he says. And make no bones that this sort of thinking prevails in all parts of our government and that to make progress—I’m assuming this is our endpoint here—we have to take down these parasites of the power structure. And how do we do this? We march forward and remove them with facts.
But for a second, let’s think on Mitchell and his attitude, his style, that righteousness. As some say: know your enemy. He makes a few points: that it works, that torture is a person only trying to be a very bad cop? Wow. And there’s still that statement that they did get information [1] and that, well, he cannot talk about it, it’s secret. Shhh! Don’t worry children, go back to sleep.
There’s the euphemisms: that this is good cop bad cop, but only at a slightly higher level. Again, that double speak, even though he knows what he’s doing is vile/evil. We see it with: can’t get information, so have to use other methods. Great. Again, completely sidestepping the issue.And finally he says: I blame the media; the chutzpah is here for everyone to see; please, please, let’s hide all forever. That’s the brilliance of these anti-American Stalinists, they actually believe in some sort of super-security apparatus answerable to no one.
That these are actions against the very existence of our constitution should not be doubted. He doesn’t stop there: finally, if the other matters didn’t work for him, he throws the 9-11, the I’m a patriot, and the look at the “others” look at what they’re doing, how evil they are. They want to kill our families [2], how can you think of saying anything to us? That is, truly the finest moment: don’t look at me, look at them.
What does one say to this righteous warrior? 1st, if one must stop him of everything he wants to hide his patriotism with. The 1st would be his 180-190 million payday (notice this: he’s only doubling down on millions, because, really, why now?). Also from our POWs they learned the worst torture techniques and they applied them. Remember this. Understand where it comes from. Know your enemy. The man who wraps himself in a flag so that he can get 100 million dollars+ is not your friend, he is as anti-American as it comes.
[1] From, as he says, the most trained ones, the ones who wouldn’t break or with whom one cannot build a rapport—it all sounds so serious, so paternal, doesn’t it? But yet there's nothing to show it, is there?
[2] This is throat-choking chutzpah, perhaps even the kind that is hypocrisy at its finest.
Enjoyed the writing? Please share it via email, facebook, twitter, or one of the buttons below (or through some other method you prefer). Thank you! As always, here's the tip jar. Throw some change in there and help cover the costs!
Then Subscribe to my mailing list* indicates requiredEmail Address * First Name Last Name Email Format htmltextmobile
But for a second, let’s think on Mitchell and his attitude, his style, that righteousness. As some say: know your enemy. He makes a few points: that it works, that torture is a person only trying to be a very bad cop? Wow. And there’s still that statement that they did get information [1] and that, well, he cannot talk about it, it’s secret. Shhh! Don’t worry children, go back to sleep.
There’s the euphemisms: that this is good cop bad cop, but only at a slightly higher level. Again, that double speak, even though he knows what he’s doing is vile/evil. We see it with: can’t get information, so have to use other methods. Great. Again, completely sidestepping the issue.And finally he says: I blame the media; the chutzpah is here for everyone to see; please, please, let’s hide all forever. That’s the brilliance of these anti-American Stalinists, they actually believe in some sort of super-security apparatus answerable to no one.
That these are actions against the very existence of our constitution should not be doubted. He doesn’t stop there: finally, if the other matters didn’t work for him, he throws the 9-11, the I’m a patriot, and the look at the “others” look at what they’re doing, how evil they are. They want to kill our families [2], how can you think of saying anything to us? That is, truly the finest moment: don’t look at me, look at them.
What does one say to this righteous warrior? 1st, if one must stop him of everything he wants to hide his patriotism with. The 1st would be his 180-190 million payday (notice this: he’s only doubling down on millions, because, really, why now?). Also from our POWs they learned the worst torture techniques and they applied them. Remember this. Understand where it comes from. Know your enemy. The man who wraps himself in a flag so that he can get 100 million dollars+ is not your friend, he is as anti-American as it comes.
[1] From, as he says, the most trained ones, the ones who wouldn’t break or with whom one cannot build a rapport—it all sounds so serious, so paternal, doesn’t it? But yet there's nothing to show it, is there?
[2] This is throat-choking chutzpah, perhaps even the kind that is hypocrisy at its finest.
Enjoyed the writing? Please share it via email, facebook, twitter, or one of the buttons below (or through some other method you prefer). Thank you! As always, here's the tip jar. Throw some change in there and help cover the costs!
Then Subscribe to my mailing list* indicates requiredEmail Address * First Name Last Name Email Format htmltextmobile
July 10, 2015
The madwoman on the subway car
There are somethings about memory and what one (or one’s mind) chooses to remember that truly confuses me. For example, I have the most serious recollection of a conversation, and though I remember the words and some of the features of the woman dealing out those words, I have no idea why I remembered it. It all happened when I took the D train down to Manhattan. I should have noticed something was a amiss when the bearded woman, smelling like piss and beer, sat down next to me. Suddenly, the subway, usually underground in this part of the Bronx, jolted back and forth and the lights went out as it lurched and came to a stop. Slowly, it inched forward, and there I was, in a station in the middle of a meadow. It took me a second to realize that this was actually happening.
The woman leaned in to speak. “It’s nothing. It happens sometimes.”
I was sure that this just didn’t happen sometimes, but I just nodded, seeing that there was no one else in the car I was in and perhaps this woman could clear a few things up.
“Let me cogitate on how all religious texts, fiction or non-fiction, compete with all other stories, being that they are basically storytelling and thus reality-defining works. Yes, even the most degenerate genre book is, in some way, competing with a scientific review of, let’s say, AI, or must it?” the woman said as she leered at me.
I listened, even though I felt a rabbit-hole awaited me if I did.But I fought off these ideals and tried to listen. Because—and I imagine this is why dire environments lead to people accepting extremists as their shapers—what she was saying was starting to make sense: it made sense because of the unease I felt in my belly about the profession I had taken up, to include the very book I was reading and the story I was creating.
“They say the novel is dying, that no one is reading anymore. But people are reading plenty, aren’t they? So why is the novel so exalted?” She paused, sniffed loudly.
“A better question,” she said as she raised a finger. “Why are all these things being separated?”
I stared at her, perhaps realizing that she really was crazy and perhaps I was crazy for listening.
“Because are they different? No!” her voice boomed, shaking my chest. “Who was the greatest American Author?”
“Melville?” I said, after much thought.
She scoffed. “No, John Smith. Hands down the best. He dreamt big and had everyone believe that dream and had that dream come true. What do you think?”
I liked the answer and so I nodded and smiled.
She raised a finger, “damn good, eh? That’s what got me kicked out of the academy, people scared of such thinking. Fundamentalist is what they called me.”
“Oh?”
“Do I look like ISIS?”
I looked at her beard for a second and gave a shaking of my head that meant maybe.
She chuckled. “Funny guy, eh?”
“I’m kidding.”
A pause. It might have been that she hadn’t been near a joke in years, that perhaps she’d only been the butt of them and now she was again. I apologized, and she muttered something: then looked at some cops entering from across the way. They told us to get out. When I asked how we could get back to New York, they scrunched up their faces and pointed out a trail through the meadow, telling me that when I came to a door with Cyrillic writing, it would be Midtown. We started down it. It was a clear blue day with the smell of cut grass in the air. It wasn’t long before the trail was soon cutting through brush land and we had to avoid the tiny branches with their large thorns. The woman hobbled beside me, looking not the slightest bit perturbed by the change in plans.
She talked on when the trail widened enough to fit two people. “Well that’s the thing: I was messin’ with the academy’s bread: the dividing of narrative, of searching for an explanation of reality, that’s how each of them had a niche and how each of them made a living. That’s even how the public,” she said as she saved her hand across the subway car, “reads. Try mixing the two in a book. Most will never read it. They’re trained to read one or another, to absorb what they can, but in one way. It’s more atomization. That keeps people separated—“
“Well people read what they want, no conspiracy needed,” I said, rather uncomfortable now, because it meant that my writing career, or whatever was left of it was turning out to be very impossible if what she said was true. But, I reminded myself, she was a madman, though I still wasn’t sure why I was listening to him.
By this time, the brush had given way to an open desert. The sun started to beat down, and I regretted not bringing some water. The trial, thankfully, was well tread. The woman offered me a drink of her wine. I refused, and she looked at me like I was a coward.
She pointed out some ruins in the distance. I stared at the crumbling statue of what looked to be a man. There were a few human skulls littered here and there to the side of the trail. I decided, sensing something amiss, not to go and explore.
She, perhaps sensing my hesitation, walked off the trail, disappeared and came back with a skull, jewelry studded in its teeth. She raised her eyebrows at me, the plucked the skull clean of its teeth. I walked on, and she scurried after me.
She grasped my elbow, “okay, maybe. But looking for the truth, trying to make sense of the reality. That’s what writing, what storytelling, what narration is all about. Myths, Gods, humans living their modern lives: it should all point somewhere, shouldn’t it?—“
“Isn’t looking for the truth now the purview of science?” I said.
She looked me over like I was nuts. “No, no, no. We’re not looking for some simple proof. What’s needed here is a complete truth. A way to dig deep,” she said as she clenched her fist and eyes. “Most novels, even the serious kinds, don’t even come close to that. Hell, most have given up. All they try to do now is to mimic what exists.” She tsked her annoyance at this trend.
And I edged away from her. Not that I wasn’t against such books; hated them, in fact. But as her eyes glowered at me, I sensed that she wanted me to contribute more to this unwanted conversation.
I shrugged. “Maybe there isn’t a truth, and their nihilism is justified.”
She shook her head. “I don’t think so, son. Only those in power want people to stop searching for the truth, to make sure the narratives given them are weak. That’s why these writers are so weak, so unimaginative: they’re tools for the powerful. And look how they’re paid. just look. All of them from those with money.”
“So,” said I, uncomfortable with her line of thinking. “You want more religion in your books?”
She shook her head hard, the tendons in her spine cracking. “No, no, no. I mean that the truth needs to be searched for.”
“So science,” I said, somewhat tired at her metaphysical view of life.
As a lizard darted in front of us, she gave me a look of pure disgust. “It doesn’t matter what the vehicle is, but the direction. Do you understand?”
I nodded my head even though I didn’t understand.
“That’s why the novel is dead, it was heading in the wrong direction. Might be why religion seems to be making a comeback.”
Silence. I stewed in the ridiculous conclusion she had just cooked up. I wondered if it was the beard, the being on the fringes of society that made her so wrong-headed. That perhaps she was so belittled by society that she wanted to belittle it back.
The sun was beating down hard at this point, and I was pricked with the thought that I could, if no shade was found, find myself as one of these sun-bleached skulls. Luckily, the trail meandered its way up to a carved out canyon, deep in the desert rock. The cool shade and the trickles of water were a godsend. Here, the canyon was painted with what looked to be prehistoric pictures. I looked closely at one near the canyon floor. It was a series of people praying prostrate to a large circle.
“Well,” I said, “that if the present seems doomed, and I’d said the past is a relic, and thus no real blueprint, that the narrative—as you would have it—is simply doomed.”
“As I would have it,” she muttered. “This fuck.” she jerked her thumb at me.”We will always have narrative!” she boomed, the echoes of her voice bouncing down the canyon. “And if it isn’t searching for the truth, it will be lies. Cacophonous lies. And our society will grow weaker for it.”
“Aren’t religions, myths, lies?” I asked, fishing, of course, for more proof of her madness.
“They are in the right direction,” she yelled as spittle flew from her mouth. “They tried. Twitter feeds. They’re nothing!”
I nodded politely and was absolutely ecstatic to see the door we had been looking for. I went through and found myself coming up on a section of Columbus Circle, right behind the statue. I made sure to lose myself in the throng of people. And then, I tried to forget everything that woman had been trying to tell me. But the more I tried, the deeper her words embedded themselves in my mind.
This is life, isn’t it? Meeting those crazies with their deep and possibly batshit theories. This one, however, stuck with me. Unnerved me so much that at the end of the day I was arguing with a friend—a scientist—that what her research did was at best provide material comforts to people, to weak people, whilst at its worse it only makes it easier to kill innocents in some odd spiral for more material comfort. All of it was for the spiritually weal, that only writing could tackled that frontier.
“You okay?” she asked after the silence had allowed what I said to boomerang and already made me feel bad. I was a staunch atheist, what need did I have to speak of spirituality?
“You seem to be lauding the metaphysical.”
“Yeah, I’m not sure,” I explained the bearded woman, though I made sure to leave out the trip we had to take to get back into the city.
“You can’t listen to these people. They’re crazy—“
“But shouldn’t we be able to refute that which they say?”
She shook her head. “You can’t. That’s why they’re crazy. If could refute what they said they would only be stupid.”
I agreed, and my mind relaxed then. But when I got back to writing, I wondered if I should have figured out a way to, when I write, include the trip through the mystical land and somehow have the bearded woman as a protagonist.
Enjoyed the writing? Please share it via email, facebook, twitter, or one of the buttons below (or through some other method you prefer). Thank you! As always, here's the tip jar. Throw some change in there and help cover the costs!
Then Subscribe to my mailing list* indicates requiredEmail Address * First Name Last Name Email Format htmltextmobile
The woman leaned in to speak. “It’s nothing. It happens sometimes.”
I was sure that this just didn’t happen sometimes, but I just nodded, seeing that there was no one else in the car I was in and perhaps this woman could clear a few things up.
“Let me cogitate on how all religious texts, fiction or non-fiction, compete with all other stories, being that they are basically storytelling and thus reality-defining works. Yes, even the most degenerate genre book is, in some way, competing with a scientific review of, let’s say, AI, or must it?” the woman said as she leered at me.
I listened, even though I felt a rabbit-hole awaited me if I did.But I fought off these ideals and tried to listen. Because—and I imagine this is why dire environments lead to people accepting extremists as their shapers—what she was saying was starting to make sense: it made sense because of the unease I felt in my belly about the profession I had taken up, to include the very book I was reading and the story I was creating.
“They say the novel is dying, that no one is reading anymore. But people are reading plenty, aren’t they? So why is the novel so exalted?” She paused, sniffed loudly.
“A better question,” she said as she raised a finger. “Why are all these things being separated?”
I stared at her, perhaps realizing that she really was crazy and perhaps I was crazy for listening.
“Because are they different? No!” her voice boomed, shaking my chest. “Who was the greatest American Author?”
“Melville?” I said, after much thought.
She scoffed. “No, John Smith. Hands down the best. He dreamt big and had everyone believe that dream and had that dream come true. What do you think?”
I liked the answer and so I nodded and smiled.
She raised a finger, “damn good, eh? That’s what got me kicked out of the academy, people scared of such thinking. Fundamentalist is what they called me.”
“Oh?”
“Do I look like ISIS?”
I looked at her beard for a second and gave a shaking of my head that meant maybe.
She chuckled. “Funny guy, eh?”
“I’m kidding.”
A pause. It might have been that she hadn’t been near a joke in years, that perhaps she’d only been the butt of them and now she was again. I apologized, and she muttered something: then looked at some cops entering from across the way. They told us to get out. When I asked how we could get back to New York, they scrunched up their faces and pointed out a trail through the meadow, telling me that when I came to a door with Cyrillic writing, it would be Midtown. We started down it. It was a clear blue day with the smell of cut grass in the air. It wasn’t long before the trail was soon cutting through brush land and we had to avoid the tiny branches with their large thorns. The woman hobbled beside me, looking not the slightest bit perturbed by the change in plans.
She talked on when the trail widened enough to fit two people. “Well that’s the thing: I was messin’ with the academy’s bread: the dividing of narrative, of searching for an explanation of reality, that’s how each of them had a niche and how each of them made a living. That’s even how the public,” she said as she saved her hand across the subway car, “reads. Try mixing the two in a book. Most will never read it. They’re trained to read one or another, to absorb what they can, but in one way. It’s more atomization. That keeps people separated—“
“Well people read what they want, no conspiracy needed,” I said, rather uncomfortable now, because it meant that my writing career, or whatever was left of it was turning out to be very impossible if what she said was true. But, I reminded myself, she was a madman, though I still wasn’t sure why I was listening to him.
By this time, the brush had given way to an open desert. The sun started to beat down, and I regretted not bringing some water. The trial, thankfully, was well tread. The woman offered me a drink of her wine. I refused, and she looked at me like I was a coward.
She pointed out some ruins in the distance. I stared at the crumbling statue of what looked to be a man. There were a few human skulls littered here and there to the side of the trail. I decided, sensing something amiss, not to go and explore.
She, perhaps sensing my hesitation, walked off the trail, disappeared and came back with a skull, jewelry studded in its teeth. She raised her eyebrows at me, the plucked the skull clean of its teeth. I walked on, and she scurried after me.
She grasped my elbow, “okay, maybe. But looking for the truth, trying to make sense of the reality. That’s what writing, what storytelling, what narration is all about. Myths, Gods, humans living their modern lives: it should all point somewhere, shouldn’t it?—“
“Isn’t looking for the truth now the purview of science?” I said.
She looked me over like I was nuts. “No, no, no. We’re not looking for some simple proof. What’s needed here is a complete truth. A way to dig deep,” she said as she clenched her fist and eyes. “Most novels, even the serious kinds, don’t even come close to that. Hell, most have given up. All they try to do now is to mimic what exists.” She tsked her annoyance at this trend.
And I edged away from her. Not that I wasn’t against such books; hated them, in fact. But as her eyes glowered at me, I sensed that she wanted me to contribute more to this unwanted conversation.
I shrugged. “Maybe there isn’t a truth, and their nihilism is justified.”
She shook her head. “I don’t think so, son. Only those in power want people to stop searching for the truth, to make sure the narratives given them are weak. That’s why these writers are so weak, so unimaginative: they’re tools for the powerful. And look how they’re paid. just look. All of them from those with money.”
“So,” said I, uncomfortable with her line of thinking. “You want more religion in your books?”
She shook her head hard, the tendons in her spine cracking. “No, no, no. I mean that the truth needs to be searched for.”
“So science,” I said, somewhat tired at her metaphysical view of life.
As a lizard darted in front of us, she gave me a look of pure disgust. “It doesn’t matter what the vehicle is, but the direction. Do you understand?”
I nodded my head even though I didn’t understand.
“That’s why the novel is dead, it was heading in the wrong direction. Might be why religion seems to be making a comeback.”
Silence. I stewed in the ridiculous conclusion she had just cooked up. I wondered if it was the beard, the being on the fringes of society that made her so wrong-headed. That perhaps she was so belittled by society that she wanted to belittle it back.
The sun was beating down hard at this point, and I was pricked with the thought that I could, if no shade was found, find myself as one of these sun-bleached skulls. Luckily, the trail meandered its way up to a carved out canyon, deep in the desert rock. The cool shade and the trickles of water were a godsend. Here, the canyon was painted with what looked to be prehistoric pictures. I looked closely at one near the canyon floor. It was a series of people praying prostrate to a large circle.
“Well,” I said, “that if the present seems doomed, and I’d said the past is a relic, and thus no real blueprint, that the narrative—as you would have it—is simply doomed.”
“As I would have it,” she muttered. “This fuck.” she jerked her thumb at me.”We will always have narrative!” she boomed, the echoes of her voice bouncing down the canyon. “And if it isn’t searching for the truth, it will be lies. Cacophonous lies. And our society will grow weaker for it.”
“Aren’t religions, myths, lies?” I asked, fishing, of course, for more proof of her madness.
“They are in the right direction,” she yelled as spittle flew from her mouth. “They tried. Twitter feeds. They’re nothing!”
I nodded politely and was absolutely ecstatic to see the door we had been looking for. I went through and found myself coming up on a section of Columbus Circle, right behind the statue. I made sure to lose myself in the throng of people. And then, I tried to forget everything that woman had been trying to tell me. But the more I tried, the deeper her words embedded themselves in my mind.
This is life, isn’t it? Meeting those crazies with their deep and possibly batshit theories. This one, however, stuck with me. Unnerved me so much that at the end of the day I was arguing with a friend—a scientist—that what her research did was at best provide material comforts to people, to weak people, whilst at its worse it only makes it easier to kill innocents in some odd spiral for more material comfort. All of it was for the spiritually weal, that only writing could tackled that frontier.
“You okay?” she asked after the silence had allowed what I said to boomerang and already made me feel bad. I was a staunch atheist, what need did I have to speak of spirituality?
“You seem to be lauding the metaphysical.”
“Yeah, I’m not sure,” I explained the bearded woman, though I made sure to leave out the trip we had to take to get back into the city.
“You can’t listen to these people. They’re crazy—“
“But shouldn’t we be able to refute that which they say?”
She shook her head. “You can’t. That’s why they’re crazy. If could refute what they said they would only be stupid.”
I agreed, and my mind relaxed then. But when I got back to writing, I wondered if I should have figured out a way to, when I write, include the trip through the mystical land and somehow have the bearded woman as a protagonist.
Enjoyed the writing? Please share it via email, facebook, twitter, or one of the buttons below (or through some other method you prefer). Thank you! As always, here's the tip jar. Throw some change in there and help cover the costs!
Then Subscribe to my mailing list* indicates requiredEmail Address * First Name Last Name Email Format htmltextmobile
July 9, 2015
Iraq Lessons Learned
What follows will be something about the war in Iraq. I have been asked by many to discuss ISIS [1] and what we should do about the Middle East, not to mention our foreign policy. I've been busy trying to get the latest book edited and ready for life, so here I've been remiss with getting to the topic. I've decided to divide it into several pieces, for one can never look at such matters head on. History is important. And today I will tackle, from the view of the newer generation of this Endless War on Terror, the legacy of previous wars. I think it's important which lessons are gleamed from this, and I hope to also grow as a veteran writer with respect to this.
When it comes to looking back on any war, it’s important that one is able to discern all the facts. For the upcoming 50th anniversary of the Vietnam war we are certain to see facts twisted and hidden in an effort to broadcast a specific narrative about that war. I speak of the Pentagon’s efforts to whitewash the war for this upcoming anniversary. Of course, this matters not just because of the past, but for making sure that the groundwork isn’t laid out for future wars.
To that end, when some people tell me that all the lessons learned about Vietnam were lost in the run-up to, and duration, of the Iraq war, I have to respectfully disagree. Because though the knowledgeable were certainly aware (this didn’t include me), the narrative about the Vietnam War in the mainstream press was (and is) not so clear. At best one heard about matters of a well-intentioned mistake, or that it was the liberal-protest movement that somehow snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. All this talk about mistakes help to build a narrative that the next time we do this, things will be better. [2]
And so it goes. For my own—still ongoing—war in Iraq, I see the same things happening. For even as we pulled out our troops in 2011, and the nation appeared tired of war, the mainstream press showed signs that no real lessons were being learned—not the right ones, anyhow.
Most of the narratives, even if they focused on mistakes, were the kind which would easily allow us to fall into the same war trap again (and certainly won’t end the endless war). These narratives included a subsection devoted to mistakes that could have turned the war around if only we had known: invading too fast, disbanding the Iraqi Army, not having enough troops, and the human/monetary cost. Again, the problem with lessons of this subsection is that they provide a false narrative that allows people to think “well, next time we can do this right”. Or, with regard to cost, we can do it cheaper next time. With automated war upon us, this is certainly possible in terms of dollars and our human cost—short term, of course; see also how the Pentagon views the air war against Laos vs the war in Vietnam, or the current drone war [3]. After ISIS came to power, the newest branch of this subsection says we should have left troops indefinitely in Iraq. [4]
With regard to the run-up of the war, the best narratives point to a handful of men lying to the nation. There were certainly lies told (and again, some claim it was faulty intelligence), but this need to focus on a singular mistake (this time in personality) takes the entire establishment off the hook. From the legislature to the press [5], all shouted down the opposition to this war and made it seem necessary.
These are the main narratives out there and they cannot be allowed to carry on unchallenged, if we are to even entertain the idea of stopping endless war. [6] They overlook the moral implications of conducting wars of aggression (the blowback from them), as well as weakening our own democracy by steamrolling opposition and limiting any chance at improving international stability by weakening international rules. To prevent the next war, we need to focus on structural reforms here at home and in international laws and their implementation. To not do so will result in us bequeathing our next generation a country and world in worse shape than ever. [7]
[1] There are many points to tackle when it comes to ISIS. I will as much as I can, to include the apparent gullibility of my friends who seem to have jumped on that train (to bomb or defeat ISIS), as well as view that which is the need of my fellow veterans who served in Iraq and elsewhere to look for a reason to be right about the wars they fought.
[2] And with all good propaganda, it's not so clear how much of this was the kind of thing that was wanted by the people and how much was forced upon them by those on top, starting with the likes of Reagan and co; but one thing is clear, that this is a whitewash of history at its best.
The main part has been to make up stories about veterans being spit upon and blame that upon the liberal/peace movements. Very little could be further from the truth. I sense, as with my war, there's a more than a few veterans who would like to conflate hatred for themselves with hatred for the war. And indeed, there is something to the simplicity of people who would like to forget a war and thus forget the veterans (or blame them, I get this sense nowadays when we have an all volunteer Army) or blame them too. And so it goes, but this really is childish as best. As a veteran I will always work towards passing on knowledge and looking for lessons learned. Our nation will only grow stronger through this, not through childish forgetfulness.
[3] Indeed if the Iraq war will teach us anything, it might be the same things as the Vietnam war did: that the only thing people don't want are soldiers dying for no reason (also, having soldiers stationed overseas means more witnesses that the media will listen to). Thus the politicians will move to minimize the amount of soldiers abroad. This means a large move to automated warfare. With regard to Vietnam, there is the counterpoint of how the Pentagon views Laos, where many lives were destroyed. Again, not much was heard of this place as innocents were slaughtered for nothing. But in the end, this should not be the solution, either. The American people must know when innocents are being slaughtered in their name. In the future we will be able to wage war cheaply and effectively, is that all right? I think not.
[4] One thing people should note is that most of these calls for "show of power" really have nothing to do with the safety of everyday American people and everything to do with the protection of oligarchs. If these people really cared, they would have asked for the money to be spent at home, wouldn't they? But they won't. That's plain for all to see, but what isn't plain is that there are so many people who simply want to ride the coattails of whomever is in power and cheer them on. This anti-Americanism is something I can never understand.
[5] And here we come to the weakest link and the inability of the press, the mainstream press, to sell anything other than the official line. What is it with this sickness? Since it leads to obfuscation packaged and sold to the American people, and since that runs so counter to the ideals of America, I can only call this a very anti-American streak as well. The only way to improve us for the future, I say, is to introduce an amendment for the future which will either limit powers to spend money on certain news stories that benefit themselves, or something similar (making sure that media is a fractured market no matter what, with a plethora of local voices, otherwise it's not freedom of speech, but freedom of money).
So somehow we need to face off with a press that always parrots the official line, and at best a two-party line when it comes to foreign entanglements.
[6] It is said that America has always been at war, so this shouldn't change much. I don't agree with this. If wars have been waged they've been waged behind the scenes and kept from the American people. Again, this is anti-Americanism as its finest. The future needs to change. But in a zero-sum game, we really need to start thinking about America and not that we're creating something like a billion enemies overseas and also allowing the nation itself to decay.
[7] Again, the moral aspect is the largest part of this equation. Kissinger-like realpolitik has taken over all major factions of our country. I'm not sure why as it is equivalent of some of the foulest regimes in the world.
FUTURE STUDIES: As I have noted many times, no one person or organization has perfect information of the world (if such a thing exists) and I certainly do not. So I acknowledge this while pointing out the future directions of what I need to study to better answer the question of what lessons can be learned from Iraq, and what we can do for future wars and warfare.
1) Look into more possible amendments that will allow us to have a less corporate media that only parrots official lines. What wording will work best to ensure the best of our first amendment is enhanced, not subverted? Again, to this end, one must deal with the press we have, and thus a program that allows us to see how moneyed interests are playing into the slant is very important, but more possible than ever.
2) Look into how the WWII syndrome plays into American views of war. Too often there's a Hitler around the corner and we need to stop him. Right.
3) Look into how to reinforce international laws (the ICC) so that less of a tribal world (that gangsterism that comes from the mouths of Americans seems to play to this world view) comes through in the world and more of a cohesive one is formed. What specific laws can be formed so that we inhibit us and other regional Empires from acting in certain ways?
To wit there are many good books on the Vietnam War here's one: American Reckoning: The Vietnam War and Our National Identity
.
Enjoyed the writing? Please share it via email, facebook, twitter, or one of the buttons below (or through some other method you prefer). Thank you! As always, here's the tip jar. Throw some change in there and help cover the costs!
Then Subscribe to my mailing list* indicates requiredEmail Address * First Name Last Name Email Format htmltextmobile
When it comes to looking back on any war, it’s important that one is able to discern all the facts. For the upcoming 50th anniversary of the Vietnam war we are certain to see facts twisted and hidden in an effort to broadcast a specific narrative about that war. I speak of the Pentagon’s efforts to whitewash the war for this upcoming anniversary. Of course, this matters not just because of the past, but for making sure that the groundwork isn’t laid out for future wars.
To that end, when some people tell me that all the lessons learned about Vietnam were lost in the run-up to, and duration, of the Iraq war, I have to respectfully disagree. Because though the knowledgeable were certainly aware (this didn’t include me), the narrative about the Vietnam War in the mainstream press was (and is) not so clear. At best one heard about matters of a well-intentioned mistake, or that it was the liberal-protest movement that somehow snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. All this talk about mistakes help to build a narrative that the next time we do this, things will be better. [2]
And so it goes. For my own—still ongoing—war in Iraq, I see the same things happening. For even as we pulled out our troops in 2011, and the nation appeared tired of war, the mainstream press showed signs that no real lessons were being learned—not the right ones, anyhow.
Most of the narratives, even if they focused on mistakes, were the kind which would easily allow us to fall into the same war trap again (and certainly won’t end the endless war). These narratives included a subsection devoted to mistakes that could have turned the war around if only we had known: invading too fast, disbanding the Iraqi Army, not having enough troops, and the human/monetary cost. Again, the problem with lessons of this subsection is that they provide a false narrative that allows people to think “well, next time we can do this right”. Or, with regard to cost, we can do it cheaper next time. With automated war upon us, this is certainly possible in terms of dollars and our human cost—short term, of course; see also how the Pentagon views the air war against Laos vs the war in Vietnam, or the current drone war [3]. After ISIS came to power, the newest branch of this subsection says we should have left troops indefinitely in Iraq. [4]
With regard to the run-up of the war, the best narratives point to a handful of men lying to the nation. There were certainly lies told (and again, some claim it was faulty intelligence), but this need to focus on a singular mistake (this time in personality) takes the entire establishment off the hook. From the legislature to the press [5], all shouted down the opposition to this war and made it seem necessary.
These are the main narratives out there and they cannot be allowed to carry on unchallenged, if we are to even entertain the idea of stopping endless war. [6] They overlook the moral implications of conducting wars of aggression (the blowback from them), as well as weakening our own democracy by steamrolling opposition and limiting any chance at improving international stability by weakening international rules. To prevent the next war, we need to focus on structural reforms here at home and in international laws and their implementation. To not do so will result in us bequeathing our next generation a country and world in worse shape than ever. [7]
[1] There are many points to tackle when it comes to ISIS. I will as much as I can, to include the apparent gullibility of my friends who seem to have jumped on that train (to bomb or defeat ISIS), as well as view that which is the need of my fellow veterans who served in Iraq and elsewhere to look for a reason to be right about the wars they fought.
[2] And with all good propaganda, it's not so clear how much of this was the kind of thing that was wanted by the people and how much was forced upon them by those on top, starting with the likes of Reagan and co; but one thing is clear, that this is a whitewash of history at its best.
The main part has been to make up stories about veterans being spit upon and blame that upon the liberal/peace movements. Very little could be further from the truth. I sense, as with my war, there's a more than a few veterans who would like to conflate hatred for themselves with hatred for the war. And indeed, there is something to the simplicity of people who would like to forget a war and thus forget the veterans (or blame them, I get this sense nowadays when we have an all volunteer Army) or blame them too. And so it goes, but this really is childish as best. As a veteran I will always work towards passing on knowledge and looking for lessons learned. Our nation will only grow stronger through this, not through childish forgetfulness.
[3] Indeed if the Iraq war will teach us anything, it might be the same things as the Vietnam war did: that the only thing people don't want are soldiers dying for no reason (also, having soldiers stationed overseas means more witnesses that the media will listen to). Thus the politicians will move to minimize the amount of soldiers abroad. This means a large move to automated warfare. With regard to Vietnam, there is the counterpoint of how the Pentagon views Laos, where many lives were destroyed. Again, not much was heard of this place as innocents were slaughtered for nothing. But in the end, this should not be the solution, either. The American people must know when innocents are being slaughtered in their name. In the future we will be able to wage war cheaply and effectively, is that all right? I think not.
[4] One thing people should note is that most of these calls for "show of power" really have nothing to do with the safety of everyday American people and everything to do with the protection of oligarchs. If these people really cared, they would have asked for the money to be spent at home, wouldn't they? But they won't. That's plain for all to see, but what isn't plain is that there are so many people who simply want to ride the coattails of whomever is in power and cheer them on. This anti-Americanism is something I can never understand.
[5] And here we come to the weakest link and the inability of the press, the mainstream press, to sell anything other than the official line. What is it with this sickness? Since it leads to obfuscation packaged and sold to the American people, and since that runs so counter to the ideals of America, I can only call this a very anti-American streak as well. The only way to improve us for the future, I say, is to introduce an amendment for the future which will either limit powers to spend money on certain news stories that benefit themselves, or something similar (making sure that media is a fractured market no matter what, with a plethora of local voices, otherwise it's not freedom of speech, but freedom of money).
So somehow we need to face off with a press that always parrots the official line, and at best a two-party line when it comes to foreign entanglements.
[6] It is said that America has always been at war, so this shouldn't change much. I don't agree with this. If wars have been waged they've been waged behind the scenes and kept from the American people. Again, this is anti-Americanism as its finest. The future needs to change. But in a zero-sum game, we really need to start thinking about America and not that we're creating something like a billion enemies overseas and also allowing the nation itself to decay.
[7] Again, the moral aspect is the largest part of this equation. Kissinger-like realpolitik has taken over all major factions of our country. I'm not sure why as it is equivalent of some of the foulest regimes in the world.
FUTURE STUDIES: As I have noted many times, no one person or organization has perfect information of the world (if such a thing exists) and I certainly do not. So I acknowledge this while pointing out the future directions of what I need to study to better answer the question of what lessons can be learned from Iraq, and what we can do for future wars and warfare.
1) Look into more possible amendments that will allow us to have a less corporate media that only parrots official lines. What wording will work best to ensure the best of our first amendment is enhanced, not subverted? Again, to this end, one must deal with the press we have, and thus a program that allows us to see how moneyed interests are playing into the slant is very important, but more possible than ever.
2) Look into how the WWII syndrome plays into American views of war. Too often there's a Hitler around the corner and we need to stop him. Right.
3) Look into how to reinforce international laws (the ICC) so that less of a tribal world (that gangsterism that comes from the mouths of Americans seems to play to this world view) comes through in the world and more of a cohesive one is formed. What specific laws can be formed so that we inhibit us and other regional Empires from acting in certain ways?
To wit there are many good books on the Vietnam War here's one: American Reckoning: The Vietnam War and Our National Identity
.Enjoyed the writing? Please share it via email, facebook, twitter, or one of the buttons below (or through some other method you prefer). Thank you! As always, here's the tip jar. Throw some change in there and help cover the costs!
Then Subscribe to my mailing list* indicates requiredEmail Address * First Name Last Name Email Format htmltextmobile
July 5, 2015
I, Immigrant and a tale from the past
As an immigrant-child growing up here in Michigan, I was always struck by the more nativist teachers I was taught by and I especially remember one who would only allow me access to the local college library if I would listen to her anti-immigrant tirades. I was a well-behaved (if a little sensitive) student then and I thought nothing more than to listen and be with my books and not make much trouble (which is a chant of all well-behaved immigrants). In some ways I felt sorry for her—was there a touch of loneliness in that diatribe?—and this empathy of mine allowed me to take the verbal assaults and finger wagging she dished out.Of all the speeches she gave, none struck me so beautiful as the last one where she explained that any nation was like a troupe of traveling circus acts, and there’s one important act of juggling several flaming balls, and what it requires is for everyone to read hidden body language and to understand when a flaming ball is going to be thrown and to also completely buy the fact that throwing about flaming balls of fire is a necessity in each of their lives. This belief is what drives the act forward, gets onlookers to pay, and they would all starve without it.
When an outsider comes into the troupe, they are new to the entire enterprise, and it’s a necessity that they learn by imitating the people already there in every way possible and they should also keep quiet and not even come close to doubting why all this should be done. In fact, even if they mimic the old timers they won’t be able to understand the body language and so they should stay completely out of the way.
Then she peered at me, her wrinkled eyes smiling. She asked if this was it, if I wasn’t going to argue with her, ever. I kept silent, waiting to be with my books. Then she scolded with me with what appeared to be a loving tone and said that if I were to become a true American I would have to speak up for myself and that, on top of that, I would have to learn to complain, because that was the way forward. I blurted out that she should shut it and let me get to the books.
The silence that followed was quite sharp but she smiled after getting over her shock. “Atta boy,” she said and let me go. She rarely talked to me after that. Yet, when I look back I still don’t understand what she’s trying to get at. Was it a poisoned pill she gave me? Was she trying to get around something I was doing to her that I didn’t fully understand? What say you, dear readers?
Enjoyed the writing? Please share it via email, facebook, twitter, or one of the buttons below (or through some other method you prefer). Thank you! As always, here's the tip jar. Throw some change in there and help cover the costs!
Then Subscribe to my mailing list* indicates requiredEmail Address * First Name Last Name Email Format htmltextmobile
When an outsider comes into the troupe, they are new to the entire enterprise, and it’s a necessity that they learn by imitating the people already there in every way possible and they should also keep quiet and not even come close to doubting why all this should be done. In fact, even if they mimic the old timers they won’t be able to understand the body language and so they should stay completely out of the way.
Then she peered at me, her wrinkled eyes smiling. She asked if this was it, if I wasn’t going to argue with her, ever. I kept silent, waiting to be with my books. Then she scolded with me with what appeared to be a loving tone and said that if I were to become a true American I would have to speak up for myself and that, on top of that, I would have to learn to complain, because that was the way forward. I blurted out that she should shut it and let me get to the books.
The silence that followed was quite sharp but she smiled after getting over her shock. “Atta boy,” she said and let me go. She rarely talked to me after that. Yet, when I look back I still don’t understand what she’s trying to get at. Was it a poisoned pill she gave me? Was she trying to get around something I was doing to her that I didn’t fully understand? What say you, dear readers?
Enjoyed the writing? Please share it via email, facebook, twitter, or one of the buttons below (or through some other method you prefer). Thank you! As always, here's the tip jar. Throw some change in there and help cover the costs!
Then Subscribe to my mailing list* indicates requiredEmail Address * First Name Last Name Email Format htmltextmobile
July 2, 2015
Moral Courage
Recent events have me rethinking my stance, rethinking even my views on how I react to certain moods of my fellow world citizens, especially when geopolitics arises, and rethink how I view myself with regard to courage and knowledge.
Now, I'm not speaking of the kind of courage which led me to sign up for 7 years in the Army. That is certainly one kind of courage, but not the courage of which I speak. No, the courage I speak of is that of the individual standing up to the crowd [1] and to a greater power for a good that requires sacrifice not only in the physical sense but in a moral one as well, for going after power means destruction in a physical sense, certainly, as well as in an a less physical and more complete one; usually this takes the form of destroying the person's name (note this: for whenever those in power go after someone, they go after their reputations, since idea-wise, they have nothing).
Also note that no single peoples or nation hold a monopoly on this reserve of courage. It merely arises when people suffer and someone with empathy or one of the suffered rises up [2]. Whether it's a man in Tiananmen Square in front of tanks, or Thomas Paine during the French Revolution.
Now back to me. I am working on that individual kind. You see, when I got out of the Army I was completely against the Empire and yet I thought that remaining silent would be the best recourse. Not because I was entirely unsure [3] but because I then took silence to be the "serious" route, the route of the polite and thinking man and the route through which peace could be attained. In fact, when my liberal and conservative friends would plaster m Facebook with their tribal chants, I looked at silence as some kind of "proper" action, or one that wasn't political [4]. I now know this to be untrue.
Whatever silence is, it isn't apolitical. In fact, it is only the approval of the status quo and whatever power is doing. It can be nothing else, unless we're talking about cowardice. And so I set off to write, not to give the pre-approved literary tripe, but to peak truth to a nation and peoples I loved (as James Baldwin says, the relationship between an artist and society, at least when one considers the artist's view, is one of love; the society itself is filled with hate for the artist—if that artist is worth his/her salt).
Nevertheless, this was filled with an inherently inbred silence that didn't allow me to speak. I'm talking about, of course, the ways in which one learns to act, and in my case I'm speaking of a specifically suburban ideology.
Now this isn't to only blame my being raised in Michigan and having been a trained to speak quietly on matters of power, though that upbringing certainly further pounded in that idea. No, this idea was beat into me at a very young age, before I was near American shores. In that sense I'm using the word "suburban" in a necessarily provocative manner, for it is a specifically middle class and even technocratic affliction that we sing silent odes to power, no matter how cruel and genocidal that power may be.
After all, it benefits us, and nothing more matters. And that doesn't happen in American alone, but in the middle class upbringing I had in commonwealth countries (though my mother's side with its Brahmin roots also speaks to this). So I'm fighting against a lot in fighting these afflictions, a lot of self-inflicted handicaps. So I'm writing this as a promise to myself to never stand silent because the group/tribe claims to require it. No, I will write and I will speak out. Even when with a group of pacifists I shall do so, though instinct beckons me to be silent. For I know one thing, that there is injustice in the world, that we must fight it and that one need to fight for the truth. Silence does not do that, suburban ideologies do. I shall shed this skin soon.
[1] It's no wonder that some people like to portray themselves as such, as standing against overwhelming odds, even if they're doing work for the dominant power in the land.
[2] The violence of the dispossessed, which I see all too often today, is a whole other matter.
[3] Though going against the grain, against the powers that be, no matter the evidence, always creates some level of uncertainty.
[4] There is no such thing as not being political. Even silence is a vote for the status quo. And when it comes to the fight between the powerful and powerless, one should certainly think on siding with the powerless—I know as a writer I do—but one should also know that you are siding with the powerful if you are silent.
Enjoyed the writing? Please share it via email, facebook, twitter, or one of the buttons below (or through some other method you prefer). Thank you! As always, here's the tip jar. Throw some change in there and help cover the costs!
Then Subscribe to my mailing list* indicates requiredEmail Address * First Name Last Name Email Format
htmltextmobile
Now, I'm not speaking of the kind of courage which led me to sign up for 7 years in the Army. That is certainly one kind of courage, but not the courage of which I speak. No, the courage I speak of is that of the individual standing up to the crowd [1] and to a greater power for a good that requires sacrifice not only in the physical sense but in a moral one as well, for going after power means destruction in a physical sense, certainly, as well as in an a less physical and more complete one; usually this takes the form of destroying the person's name (note this: for whenever those in power go after someone, they go after their reputations, since idea-wise, they have nothing).
Also note that no single peoples or nation hold a monopoly on this reserve of courage. It merely arises when people suffer and someone with empathy or one of the suffered rises up [2]. Whether it's a man in Tiananmen Square in front of tanks, or Thomas Paine during the French Revolution.
Now back to me. I am working on that individual kind. You see, when I got out of the Army I was completely against the Empire and yet I thought that remaining silent would be the best recourse. Not because I was entirely unsure [3] but because I then took silence to be the "serious" route, the route of the polite and thinking man and the route through which peace could be attained. In fact, when my liberal and conservative friends would plaster m Facebook with their tribal chants, I looked at silence as some kind of "proper" action, or one that wasn't political [4]. I now know this to be untrue.
Whatever silence is, it isn't apolitical. In fact, it is only the approval of the status quo and whatever power is doing. It can be nothing else, unless we're talking about cowardice. And so I set off to write, not to give the pre-approved literary tripe, but to peak truth to a nation and peoples I loved (as James Baldwin says, the relationship between an artist and society, at least when one considers the artist's view, is one of love; the society itself is filled with hate for the artist—if that artist is worth his/her salt).
Nevertheless, this was filled with an inherently inbred silence that didn't allow me to speak. I'm talking about, of course, the ways in which one learns to act, and in my case I'm speaking of a specifically suburban ideology.
Now this isn't to only blame my being raised in Michigan and having been a trained to speak quietly on matters of power, though that upbringing certainly further pounded in that idea. No, this idea was beat into me at a very young age, before I was near American shores. In that sense I'm using the word "suburban" in a necessarily provocative manner, for it is a specifically middle class and even technocratic affliction that we sing silent odes to power, no matter how cruel and genocidal that power may be.
After all, it benefits us, and nothing more matters. And that doesn't happen in American alone, but in the middle class upbringing I had in commonwealth countries (though my mother's side with its Brahmin roots also speaks to this). So I'm fighting against a lot in fighting these afflictions, a lot of self-inflicted handicaps. So I'm writing this as a promise to myself to never stand silent because the group/tribe claims to require it. No, I will write and I will speak out. Even when with a group of pacifists I shall do so, though instinct beckons me to be silent. For I know one thing, that there is injustice in the world, that we must fight it and that one need to fight for the truth. Silence does not do that, suburban ideologies do. I shall shed this skin soon.
[1] It's no wonder that some people like to portray themselves as such, as standing against overwhelming odds, even if they're doing work for the dominant power in the land.
[2] The violence of the dispossessed, which I see all too often today, is a whole other matter.
[3] Though going against the grain, against the powers that be, no matter the evidence, always creates some level of uncertainty.
[4] There is no such thing as not being political. Even silence is a vote for the status quo. And when it comes to the fight between the powerful and powerless, one should certainly think on siding with the powerless—I know as a writer I do—but one should also know that you are siding with the powerful if you are silent.
Enjoyed the writing? Please share it via email, facebook, twitter, or one of the buttons below (or through some other method you prefer). Thank you! As always, here's the tip jar. Throw some change in there and help cover the costs!
Then Subscribe to my mailing list* indicates requiredEmail Address * First Name Last Name Email Format
htmltextmobile
June 30, 2015
The Heart is a Bloody Protagonist
The average heart beats 2,869,776,000 times in a life time. Give or take. I’m aware that at least 1 billion of these heart beats are forever gone for me. The story of
I
, the story of any human, is one which should include this bloody protagonist and its trials and tribulations. It doesn’t. Not usually. On a daily basis, unless it troubles us, we ignore it. A lesson for life, that.
But we also have some other aspects of this final countdown of beats until the final one. I’m at 1.8 billion left. Seems like a lot, but a million go by in a couple of weeks. Yeah, and there’s even some illogical tradeoffs. Not every beat is the same. If you slow or speed the heart for the right reasons, then, ostensibly, you’ll get more at the end. The rituals are plethora: eat right, your heart will thank you; exercise to increase the speed with which it beats and you’ll get more beats out of it, don’t do it and you’ll be punished with less beats; slow down the beats in the right way—meditate—and you can get more out of it. But you can never truly know.
And this may be a digression, but I truly think we try to protect the heart while at the same time trying to ignore what it is [1]. We refer to it with regard to love, as well as treating it to the right food so that we can live longer or better, but it is, in many ways, placed in a shrine. And like most of our other gods, we hope to ignore it and the ramifications it has in our daily lives. The rituals and sacrifices we do perform are usually done to stave off disaster; we’re afraid of the angry heart-god who will punish us for transgressions. And until those punishments are dealt to us or someone near us, we feel fine to ignore all that, or not to give much thought to that which we do or what the god’s priests (doctors) will say.
But that might be a little too much conjecture, don't you think? As for me, I’ve been spending less time taking care of that bloody protagonist in my life and focusing upon my real vice. Writing. So now that I know the countdown is more dire than ever (oh, what’s the saying? You’ll never know the last million beats?) what shall I do with it? Well, there isn’t much that will change. I will, as always, continue to write. There will be nothing for me to consider outside of that. Of course I want to leave something for posterity, leave something worthwhile, leave something that people will learn from. I am not certain I can achieve that. I also know it will certainly chip away at those heart beats, both in an early death as well as the stress of dissidence. And now those 1.8 billion beats are put into perspective: walk the path you must and there will be fewer.
Yet I know I cannot not try. There is nothing else in me but that energy to try. Oh, and let me be romantic for a moment and take into account the hard and ironic reality that the very heart that drives me to write also drives me down the path of fewer beats. Such fate, this.
And I’ll leave you with a quote that I’ll give credit to Chomsky for; it’s a paraphrase of Pascal’s Wager (the one about believing in a God, never mind the lack of a specific god). That if you have no hope, you’ll do nothing and there’ll be no chance, but even having hope in the face of overwhelming odds will give you hope.
And you too, dear reader, what does your heart tell you?
[1] Better for most of us to focus on the self and the body.
Enjoyed the writing? Please share it via email, facebook, twitter, or one of the buttons below (or through some other method you prefer). Thank you! As always, here's the tip jar. Throw some change in there and help cover the costs!
Then Subscribe to my mailing list* indicates requiredEmail Address * First Name Last Name Email Format htmltextmobile
But we also have some other aspects of this final countdown of beats until the final one. I’m at 1.8 billion left. Seems like a lot, but a million go by in a couple of weeks. Yeah, and there’s even some illogical tradeoffs. Not every beat is the same. If you slow or speed the heart for the right reasons, then, ostensibly, you’ll get more at the end. The rituals are plethora: eat right, your heart will thank you; exercise to increase the speed with which it beats and you’ll get more beats out of it, don’t do it and you’ll be punished with less beats; slow down the beats in the right way—meditate—and you can get more out of it. But you can never truly know.
And this may be a digression, but I truly think we try to protect the heart while at the same time trying to ignore what it is [1]. We refer to it with regard to love, as well as treating it to the right food so that we can live longer or better, but it is, in many ways, placed in a shrine. And like most of our other gods, we hope to ignore it and the ramifications it has in our daily lives. The rituals and sacrifices we do perform are usually done to stave off disaster; we’re afraid of the angry heart-god who will punish us for transgressions. And until those punishments are dealt to us or someone near us, we feel fine to ignore all that, or not to give much thought to that which we do or what the god’s priests (doctors) will say.
But that might be a little too much conjecture, don't you think? As for me, I’ve been spending less time taking care of that bloody protagonist in my life and focusing upon my real vice. Writing. So now that I know the countdown is more dire than ever (oh, what’s the saying? You’ll never know the last million beats?) what shall I do with it? Well, there isn’t much that will change. I will, as always, continue to write. There will be nothing for me to consider outside of that. Of course I want to leave something for posterity, leave something worthwhile, leave something that people will learn from. I am not certain I can achieve that. I also know it will certainly chip away at those heart beats, both in an early death as well as the stress of dissidence. And now those 1.8 billion beats are put into perspective: walk the path you must and there will be fewer.
Yet I know I cannot not try. There is nothing else in me but that energy to try. Oh, and let me be romantic for a moment and take into account the hard and ironic reality that the very heart that drives me to write also drives me down the path of fewer beats. Such fate, this.
And I’ll leave you with a quote that I’ll give credit to Chomsky for; it’s a paraphrase of Pascal’s Wager (the one about believing in a God, never mind the lack of a specific god). That if you have no hope, you’ll do nothing and there’ll be no chance, but even having hope in the face of overwhelming odds will give you hope.
And you too, dear reader, what does your heart tell you?
[1] Better for most of us to focus on the self and the body.
Enjoyed the writing? Please share it via email, facebook, twitter, or one of the buttons below (or through some other method you prefer). Thank you! As always, here's the tip jar. Throw some change in there and help cover the costs!
Then Subscribe to my mailing list* indicates requiredEmail Address * First Name Last Name Email Format htmltextmobile
June 29, 2015
Quick note: something in the air.
One more note on something's in the air: Jade Helm. [1] And so it goes. Chomsky has spoken about similar levels of paranoia and the symptom of outlandish conspiracy theories that come about because people have a healthy distrust for the government, and yet they refuse to combine this critical analysis (or perhaps I'm being too generous, perhaps it's only a heuristic) to other forms of informations, though even I admit that it's hard to discern such matters.
Nevertheless, I already mentioned that I recently came across my own data point of a Jade Helm believer, and I was too stunned to think of a way to fuel the fire (using my military background to some effect, I suppose) and was amazed that someone could believe this so.
Now, that the government keeps things from us shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. Just look at the secrecy surrounding the TPP (and how, despite people's protests, it will pass through) and the manner in which it was drafted. To say it is anti-democratic is besides the point. I myself am not sure that, outside of blaming the oligarchies in charge, how it is that people see something like the TPP and immediately think up Jade Helm. I'm not saying that it's completely outside the realm of possibilities; I'm just saying it's highly unlikely and if one simply looks at history, even with all its atrocities, it stands to reason that though violence by those in power is very possible (though most concocting Jade Helm are not the kind to like violence by other powerless groups, interestingly enough), if they are winning so handily, it's very unlikely.
Perhaps this speaks more to how certain people like to view themselves as the powerless (better so to be the victim and thus victimize others)? I'm not sure. Again, it doesn't take much to see that much information is withheld by the media and one needs to really look for it to gain any insights into the world; yet it doesn't make sense to see this conspiracy (very run of mill and very much in line with history) and jump to the conclusion of a conspiracy like Jade Helm.
I know I'm missing something, and I'm not sure what exactly it is. Someone out there could surely enlighten us. Is it the fact that people would rather spend their time on conspiracy theories that really don't perturb those in power since they're so outlandish [2]? I would certainly like to know more and shall add what sources I can find on the matter:
Matters to be researched to further find out more about this (I'm thinking mainly in terms of the US):
A) Correlation of outlandish conspiracy theories associated with bad economic times (look into local areas hit especially hard by economic blight. The economic blight can be especially harsh if it comes along with unmet expectations for one's economic situation as well as one's intellectual abilities.
B) Correlation of outlandish conspiracy theories associated with increase in known government lies (TPP, being an example of this), to include lies about attacks on foreign people (wars, IOW) and thus a increase in distrust with the government (unkept promises).
C) Correlation of groups that believe in such conspiracies and how they may have a diminished sense of power (losing power while another gains it) or that the "other" is taking over. (In many ways, Obama has stimulated much of this, or has he simply allowed somethings to come to the fore?)
D) How universal are these thoughts? In many other parts of the world, especially when the great powers are playing with people as they see fit, conspiracy theories abound, but it's usually with great reason and usually in line with much of the evidence out there.
E) Simply a large increase in technological changes that make the world unrecognizable and thus ripe for conspiracies (though this could be closely tied in to the economic matter, whereby one cannot participate in the economy anymore and is thus left without a voice).
F) That in a democracy where many people (of eligible voters, which in the USA is extremely low) don't have a voice, such conspiracy theories abound. This too could be tied into the expectation of having a voice, then losing it (relatively speaking, to others).
What are your thoughts on the matter?
[1] I have perused a few internet chat rooms and it would seem that people in the military (and those traveling through places like Texas and who are questioned by the locals about what it is they're doing) have decided to feed the fuels and help to start rumors about possible takeovers. I encourage this. Any such views of things like Jade Helm are ridiculous to say the least.
[2] Note, however, that those in power will always treat all accusations against them as outlandish, though the really outlandish ones usually don't even get a reply.
Enjoyed the writing? Please share it via email, facebook, twitter, or one of the buttons below (or through some other method you prefer). Thank you! As always, here's the tip jar. Throw some change in there and help cover the costs!
Then Subscribe to my mailing list* indicates requiredEmail Address * First Name Last Name Email Format htmltextmobile
Nevertheless, I already mentioned that I recently came across my own data point of a Jade Helm believer, and I was too stunned to think of a way to fuel the fire (using my military background to some effect, I suppose) and was amazed that someone could believe this so.
Now, that the government keeps things from us shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. Just look at the secrecy surrounding the TPP (and how, despite people's protests, it will pass through) and the manner in which it was drafted. To say it is anti-democratic is besides the point. I myself am not sure that, outside of blaming the oligarchies in charge, how it is that people see something like the TPP and immediately think up Jade Helm. I'm not saying that it's completely outside the realm of possibilities; I'm just saying it's highly unlikely and if one simply looks at history, even with all its atrocities, it stands to reason that though violence by those in power is very possible (though most concocting Jade Helm are not the kind to like violence by other powerless groups, interestingly enough), if they are winning so handily, it's very unlikely.
Perhaps this speaks more to how certain people like to view themselves as the powerless (better so to be the victim and thus victimize others)? I'm not sure. Again, it doesn't take much to see that much information is withheld by the media and one needs to really look for it to gain any insights into the world; yet it doesn't make sense to see this conspiracy (very run of mill and very much in line with history) and jump to the conclusion of a conspiracy like Jade Helm.
I know I'm missing something, and I'm not sure what exactly it is. Someone out there could surely enlighten us. Is it the fact that people would rather spend their time on conspiracy theories that really don't perturb those in power since they're so outlandish [2]? I would certainly like to know more and shall add what sources I can find on the matter:
Matters to be researched to further find out more about this (I'm thinking mainly in terms of the US):
A) Correlation of outlandish conspiracy theories associated with bad economic times (look into local areas hit especially hard by economic blight. The economic blight can be especially harsh if it comes along with unmet expectations for one's economic situation as well as one's intellectual abilities.
B) Correlation of outlandish conspiracy theories associated with increase in known government lies (TPP, being an example of this), to include lies about attacks on foreign people (wars, IOW) and thus a increase in distrust with the government (unkept promises).
C) Correlation of groups that believe in such conspiracies and how they may have a diminished sense of power (losing power while another gains it) or that the "other" is taking over. (In many ways, Obama has stimulated much of this, or has he simply allowed somethings to come to the fore?)
D) How universal are these thoughts? In many other parts of the world, especially when the great powers are playing with people as they see fit, conspiracy theories abound, but it's usually with great reason and usually in line with much of the evidence out there.
E) Simply a large increase in technological changes that make the world unrecognizable and thus ripe for conspiracies (though this could be closely tied in to the economic matter, whereby one cannot participate in the economy anymore and is thus left without a voice).
F) That in a democracy where many people (of eligible voters, which in the USA is extremely low) don't have a voice, such conspiracy theories abound. This too could be tied into the expectation of having a voice, then losing it (relatively speaking, to others).
What are your thoughts on the matter?
[1] I have perused a few internet chat rooms and it would seem that people in the military (and those traveling through places like Texas and who are questioned by the locals about what it is they're doing) have decided to feed the fuels and help to start rumors about possible takeovers. I encourage this. Any such views of things like Jade Helm are ridiculous to say the least.
[2] Note, however, that those in power will always treat all accusations against them as outlandish, though the really outlandish ones usually don't even get a reply.
Enjoyed the writing? Please share it via email, facebook, twitter, or one of the buttons below (or through some other method you prefer). Thank you! As always, here's the tip jar. Throw some change in there and help cover the costs!
Then Subscribe to my mailing list* indicates requiredEmail Address * First Name Last Name Email Format htmltextmobile
June 26, 2015
Thoughts on Batman movies and the world as it is.
If one reads up on the recent golden age of TV (I’m not so sure about that, but it is better than that which came before), they also hear about the handful of somewhat serious movies. Of course, the prattle in the mainstream media focuses on the big movies, trying to tie in why something not as superficial as most movies did so well. Where they err is when they make some claim that a certain movie is deep. One such series is the Batman series. Heath Ledger’s performance aside, I’m of the thought that the entire series is a little overrated. This alone is worthy of a thesis level expose, but I have neither the time nor the inclination for that. I will say that, like most Americans, I was very entertained by the movies (again, Heath’s performance must rank amongst the best performances by a villain that I have ever seen), but to stretch that into some idle talk about how deep they were, how they spoke to the war on terror (they might have, but only with a sophomoric understanding of the matter).
Allow me to explain. The first one didn’t seem to say much about evil, not the way I saw it. It was with the second one where we saw something more along the lines of trying to tout something like the world view we see in most of our own foreign policy. And that’s where I simply don’t agree. Again, it was at best, simply conservatism trying to masquerade as deep thought. And that during dinner conversations I kept hearing people (who were, certainly, smarter than I) tell me that the Director was well versed in the classics and thus was truly delving into the depths of humanity when he made these movies. Fair enough (and I won’t even mention the pressure I’m sure he was under to make the movie to the normal Hollywood formula), but if these movies represent the classics in a film form, we need better classics.
One can even see how many of the million dollar sentences in the film have leaked into the national dialogue. And the likes of Thomas Friedman have been trying to tie in ISIS to the joker. Brilliant. And yet even the deepest lines of the movie should not be considered as anything more than entertainment [1]. When Alfred talks to Bruce about a man who robbed caravans meant to bribe tribal leaders, he ends with the line, “some men just want to watch the world burn.” Is that so? Many people never even question that line, and it would seem that they should. How is a man who is essentially a modern day robin hood (the bandit who wasn’t robbing the caravans for his own personal gain was considered as such by Alfred) and in the end, it was considered good to burn down the forest by those in power. Fair enough [2]. But isn’t this a very good case against those in power, such as Batman, rather than other people? And yet, no one mentions anything about this aspect of the movie. So people, have discussed it, nonetheless, and shot down the Robin Hood interpretation. I can only see either a hagiography for the bandit, or a incrimination of Alfred and Batman; both of whom see the world in a colonialist fashion.
Furthermore, in the last movie of the trilogy, I have an extreme bias against the ending (though, in the end, the movie was much more underwhelming than the second movie), whereby the Batman appears to make the ultimate sacrifice. Powerful moment, I thought. And yet it goes on to waste that and have the happy ending that all movies without significance have. Again, what does that say about the sacrifice made and how it was that the Batman decided to disappear? In my view that made a possibly strong movie into another Disneyfied one.
And over all, this plays into the movies like Zero Dark Thirty and others that only seem to laud power. And as it's famously said: in the fight between the powerful and the powerless, staying silent (what most people choose to do) is to side with the powerful. Perhaps I’m wrong, but it is certainly what I see, even in movies like this.
[1] For those who truly think that this is nothing, that this is entertainment, please. We all know better than that at this day in age.
[2] And if this is indeed some poisoned seed that was meant to be dropped into the movie, then very well, I stand corrected.
Enjoyed the writing? Please share it via email, facebook, twitter, or one of the buttons below (or through some other method you prefer). Thank you! As always, here's the tip jar. Throw some change in there and help cover the costs!
Then Subscribe to my mailing list* indicates requiredEmail Address * First Name Last Name Email Format htmltextmobile
Allow me to explain. The first one didn’t seem to say much about evil, not the way I saw it. It was with the second one where we saw something more along the lines of trying to tout something like the world view we see in most of our own foreign policy. And that’s where I simply don’t agree. Again, it was at best, simply conservatism trying to masquerade as deep thought. And that during dinner conversations I kept hearing people (who were, certainly, smarter than I) tell me that the Director was well versed in the classics and thus was truly delving into the depths of humanity when he made these movies. Fair enough (and I won’t even mention the pressure I’m sure he was under to make the movie to the normal Hollywood formula), but if these movies represent the classics in a film form, we need better classics.
One can even see how many of the million dollar sentences in the film have leaked into the national dialogue. And the likes of Thomas Friedman have been trying to tie in ISIS to the joker. Brilliant. And yet even the deepest lines of the movie should not be considered as anything more than entertainment [1]. When Alfred talks to Bruce about a man who robbed caravans meant to bribe tribal leaders, he ends with the line, “some men just want to watch the world burn.” Is that so? Many people never even question that line, and it would seem that they should. How is a man who is essentially a modern day robin hood (the bandit who wasn’t robbing the caravans for his own personal gain was considered as such by Alfred) and in the end, it was considered good to burn down the forest by those in power. Fair enough [2]. But isn’t this a very good case against those in power, such as Batman, rather than other people? And yet, no one mentions anything about this aspect of the movie. So people, have discussed it, nonetheless, and shot down the Robin Hood interpretation. I can only see either a hagiography for the bandit, or a incrimination of Alfred and Batman; both of whom see the world in a colonialist fashion.
Furthermore, in the last movie of the trilogy, I have an extreme bias against the ending (though, in the end, the movie was much more underwhelming than the second movie), whereby the Batman appears to make the ultimate sacrifice. Powerful moment, I thought. And yet it goes on to waste that and have the happy ending that all movies without significance have. Again, what does that say about the sacrifice made and how it was that the Batman decided to disappear? In my view that made a possibly strong movie into another Disneyfied one.
And over all, this plays into the movies like Zero Dark Thirty and others that only seem to laud power. And as it's famously said: in the fight between the powerful and the powerless, staying silent (what most people choose to do) is to side with the powerful. Perhaps I’m wrong, but it is certainly what I see, even in movies like this.
[1] For those who truly think that this is nothing, that this is entertainment, please. We all know better than that at this day in age.
[2] And if this is indeed some poisoned seed that was meant to be dropped into the movie, then very well, I stand corrected.
Enjoyed the writing? Please share it via email, facebook, twitter, or one of the buttons below (or through some other method you prefer). Thank you! As always, here's the tip jar. Throw some change in there and help cover the costs!
Then Subscribe to my mailing list* indicates requiredEmail Address * First Name Last Name Email Format htmltextmobile
June 23, 2015
Artist and the Art
In every man woman and child there lies an artist. For some it's a lifetime of obsession. For others, it's something they find when they're doing something else which they don't particularly like (if you're doing something you do like, then that usually absorbs your passions, something vital for an artist). Vonnegut says that we should all at least do something artful at some point in our lives. I agree. Perhaps when the robots take over, they will allow us this much.
But, that being said, being a writer is only one kind of artist, and I am often impressed with the more direct lines to the human soul: music and visual art. Of these two, the latter seems to speak more and more to my sense of being (music can still calm me, but it tends to affect me less than when I was younger, move me less too). In fact, that has been one of the true stories of personal growth or evolution in my life: how I managed to love the art.
Like most people I was always impressed with very realistic and dramatic paintings. But I slowly learned to love abstract art, learned that art was what a piece evoked in you. I still prefer sculptures over paintings, but I appreciate the latter more. This doesn't mean I haven't completely lost my middle class roots: I have walked into the Dea Beacon, north of NYC, and been completely confused at what I saw. Some art, like a pile of rubble, I simply will never get. Or even those videos in art museums. All seem like they take too little effort to be anything of value (speaking as a pleb, of course).
And for what I see today, I like the street art and what the likes of Banksy creates, since it seems to say something more than simple facture ever could. Take the rubble I mentioned above in the Dea Beacon. Then take what Banksy did with rubble in Gaza: he actually made a statement, and that to me matters more than anything else will. The need to see the realistic in art? Perhaps. But that's why of all the art movements today, street art and art that speaks to the modern soul, the kind that at least has a political statement (humans are naturally political, so those who would say they aren't trying to be political are being the most political of them all).
Of course, there's also the manipulation of data and how people are speaking about the world of data, but all that is fledgling, IMHO, as an art. Meanwhile, I will try to more and more immerse myself in the world of street art.
Enjoyed the writing? Please share it via email, facebook, twitter, or one of the buttons below (or through some other method you prefer). Thank you! As always, here's the tip jar. Throw some change in there and help cover the costs!
Then Subscribe to my mailing list* indicates requiredEmail Address * First Name Last Name Email Format htmltextmobile
But, that being said, being a writer is only one kind of artist, and I am often impressed with the more direct lines to the human soul: music and visual art. Of these two, the latter seems to speak more and more to my sense of being (music can still calm me, but it tends to affect me less than when I was younger, move me less too). In fact, that has been one of the true stories of personal growth or evolution in my life: how I managed to love the art.
Like most people I was always impressed with very realistic and dramatic paintings. But I slowly learned to love abstract art, learned that art was what a piece evoked in you. I still prefer sculptures over paintings, but I appreciate the latter more. This doesn't mean I haven't completely lost my middle class roots: I have walked into the Dea Beacon, north of NYC, and been completely confused at what I saw. Some art, like a pile of rubble, I simply will never get. Or even those videos in art museums. All seem like they take too little effort to be anything of value (speaking as a pleb, of course).
And for what I see today, I like the street art and what the likes of Banksy creates, since it seems to say something more than simple facture ever could. Take the rubble I mentioned above in the Dea Beacon. Then take what Banksy did with rubble in Gaza: he actually made a statement, and that to me matters more than anything else will. The need to see the realistic in art? Perhaps. But that's why of all the art movements today, street art and art that speaks to the modern soul, the kind that at least has a political statement (humans are naturally political, so those who would say they aren't trying to be political are being the most political of them all).
Of course, there's also the manipulation of data and how people are speaking about the world of data, but all that is fledgling, IMHO, as an art. Meanwhile, I will try to more and more immerse myself in the world of street art.
Enjoyed the writing? Please share it via email, facebook, twitter, or one of the buttons below (or through some other method you prefer). Thank you! As always, here's the tip jar. Throw some change in there and help cover the costs!
Then Subscribe to my mailing list* indicates requiredEmail Address * First Name Last Name Email Format htmltextmobile
Nelson Lowhim's Blog
- Nelson Lowhim's profile
- 14 followers
Nelson Lowhim isn't a Goodreads Author
(yet),
but they
do have a blog,
so here are some recent posts imported from
their feed.
