Nelson Lowhim's Blog, page 125
July 27, 2014
On sports and the world burning
Times are rough, as I'm sure they are for most people out there. Will be posting some essays, as well as the short novel I promised in the next month or so. Nevertheless, I do hope that this fall to winter will bring a few more books (a new one as well as the end of a series). I will, as I said before, get up the shorts (sometimes fiction, sometimes not) that will tackle more current events as they come up. I'll rely on my readership to see if the fiction ones need to be labeled as such, but as it stands unless someone says otherwise, I'll leave it as it is.
Spent some time watching the World Cup (partially hoping that the teams I liked fell off so I could work some more), and it seemed almost perfectly timed with the events around the world (especially in Iraq with the ISIS, but also in Brazil itself, what with all her displaced peoples) that signify a world burning down. But I watched, nonetheless, and it helped assuage the pain of watching other parts of the world burning (which I'm sure—in one way or another, with one tribe picked or another—that most Americans feel as well).
What of it, you say (or perhaps uwotm8*)? Thing is, one always thinks back on the oft-stated anecdote that Roman rulers (Nero being one) used entertainment to take the mob's attention away from creeping autocratic laws or the downfall of the Empire itself. This always seems like a reason for anyone with a pet issue to, when it's not gaining traction, to point to vapid superficiality (in the form of chasing some sort of entertainment) as the reason that it's so. The better ones will point to someone up top who would dare to use this entertainment to make sure they can take away some freedom or oppress someone somewhere.
I'll admit that this appears to be an easy out when one's frustrated (and I've even thought it at one time or another). And though I'm sure it's been used to some effect in history, it's not the entire story. For I spent some time away from the issues watching eleven grown men bounce a ball amongst them and was entertained. But though one forgets, it's not for long. And when I have a Twitter feed, or Facebook feed, I know how annoying it is to read someone's feed when it's just about one thing. No matter how valid that may be. Something to be said about humanity needing variety (being wary of obsessiveness)? Or perhaps that of my upbringing and needing variety? (I don't expect the same thing from really serious fiction). I know I make sure that my own spouts out there to the world have a variety of issues.
And what of this? That entertainment is needed to be able to take the full brunt of that which the world throws at us? It's never bad to laugh when in the midst of something horrible. The human spirit demands it. So I think that all the statements (none ever claimed to be that informed) that point to entertainment as some talisman where people lose their desire for a better life seem ill-informed now (would the Tunisians have not revolted if they had Youtube streaming everywhere—ignoring, of course, the improved infrastructure that such a world would have required?).
*Footnote: That perhaps people should use more and more internet slang in writing. Not necessarily as the bulk of the narrative, but at least in the areas that attempt to mimic such parts: such as the internet itself (don't see usage of the internet itself in much writing, at least that which I've read).
Also, next short will be labeled: Better men have lost bigger bets
Spent some time watching the World Cup (partially hoping that the teams I liked fell off so I could work some more), and it seemed almost perfectly timed with the events around the world (especially in Iraq with the ISIS, but also in Brazil itself, what with all her displaced peoples) that signify a world burning down. But I watched, nonetheless, and it helped assuage the pain of watching other parts of the world burning (which I'm sure—in one way or another, with one tribe picked or another—that most Americans feel as well).
What of it, you say (or perhaps uwotm8*)? Thing is, one always thinks back on the oft-stated anecdote that Roman rulers (Nero being one) used entertainment to take the mob's attention away from creeping autocratic laws or the downfall of the Empire itself. This always seems like a reason for anyone with a pet issue to, when it's not gaining traction, to point to vapid superficiality (in the form of chasing some sort of entertainment) as the reason that it's so. The better ones will point to someone up top who would dare to use this entertainment to make sure they can take away some freedom or oppress someone somewhere.
I'll admit that this appears to be an easy out when one's frustrated (and I've even thought it at one time or another). And though I'm sure it's been used to some effect in history, it's not the entire story. For I spent some time away from the issues watching eleven grown men bounce a ball amongst them and was entertained. But though one forgets, it's not for long. And when I have a Twitter feed, or Facebook feed, I know how annoying it is to read someone's feed when it's just about one thing. No matter how valid that may be. Something to be said about humanity needing variety (being wary of obsessiveness)? Or perhaps that of my upbringing and needing variety? (I don't expect the same thing from really serious fiction). I know I make sure that my own spouts out there to the world have a variety of issues.
And what of this? That entertainment is needed to be able to take the full brunt of that which the world throws at us? It's never bad to laugh when in the midst of something horrible. The human spirit demands it. So I think that all the statements (none ever claimed to be that informed) that point to entertainment as some talisman where people lose their desire for a better life seem ill-informed now (would the Tunisians have not revolted if they had Youtube streaming everywhere—ignoring, of course, the improved infrastructure that such a world would have required?).
*Footnote: That perhaps people should use more and more internet slang in writing. Not necessarily as the bulk of the narrative, but at least in the areas that attempt to mimic such parts: such as the internet itself (don't see usage of the internet itself in much writing, at least that which I've read).
Also, next short will be labeled: Better men have lost bigger bets
July 20, 2014
[OM] And so it goes
Of course, it seems that the summer is truly heating up (providing ever more evidence that increased heat does indeed cause more violence) around the world. With Ukraine and the Middle East being especially contentious, I find myself more and more removed from the zeitgeist: most of it consisting of shrill cries on facebook, twitter and the more insidious views on the news. Honestly, I visited facebook for the first time in months, and it was clowns on the left, jokers to the right (especially when one considers the Israeli conflict)... I felt disgusted and shut it down.
With the news and social media feeds seemingly so shrill, what's one to do? I've mentioned how to deal with the new news paradigm that exists in the world today. Nevertheless, I think that there is some good that comes out of the current set up. First, it allows for more voices to be heard. Sure that leads to more misinformation (paid trolls etc), but as an adherent of the democratic ideal, I would say that it's all for the best (and a first step). Even before the advent of social media, one could say that many views were being suppressed. And even though it's a bunch of shouting, it seems that some views are now being heard more. Give a round of applause for free speech, no matter how ugly.
Because that is what matters here. This shift is what's causing the shrillness, I dare say. It may continue, but it may be that it's only those who were used to hearing only their voice who are shouted down (or more so than before). That the Internet comments sections is part of this change is a good thing. Of course, I mentioned that some aspects of the mob mentality is no good (one cannot just shout, they must listen as well, and argue in good faith), but once we can move away from that, we can surely move towards more open discussions. We shall see, but I have hope.
On that note, dear reader, do not fret for a novella of mine will be up soon. A little bit of an odd piece of writing, it will be interesting to hear reactions. I will only be publishing short novels and larger from here on out. Until I see a reason to do otherwise, I will either send out the shorts for publishing elsewhere, or if it's too 'odd' I'll publish them here. It seems a little much to publish other, smaller pieces as ebooks. Though I will certainly try to make them available in any form possible. (update: that I recommend you signing up for the email newsletter as it will have stories not available elsewhere).
Some other articles that might pique your interest (ostensibly on all matters global or books):#This one is on the global conflict of the West and Islam as seen through the lens of the Rushdie affair.#This one is a list of the five best science fiction novels out there. #This one is an article about drone warfare and its effects on the world.# This one is about reading news in today's world. The solution is that global is better.# This one is a list of the best books of the 21st century# This one is a list of the best books of the 20th century#This on is an article with links to matters of the Iraq war and players not commonly known.
My book: Ministry of Bombs
is an exciting and unconventional take on the War on Terror.
Thank you for reading, I understand how valuable your time is. If you found this story/musing interesting in any way, I would be grateful if you could share it. Getting the word out is an important part of growing my readership. You can sign up here to receive news and other goodies, such as free books (free shorts) here: http://eepurl.com/DX2In
Then Subscribe to my mailing list* indicates requiredEmail Address * First Name Last Name Email Format
htmltextmobile
And if you could give a reasonable tip using the donate button below, that would be greatly appreciated as well. All the best, and thanks again:
With the news and social media feeds seemingly so shrill, what's one to do? I've mentioned how to deal with the new news paradigm that exists in the world today. Nevertheless, I think that there is some good that comes out of the current set up. First, it allows for more voices to be heard. Sure that leads to more misinformation (paid trolls etc), but as an adherent of the democratic ideal, I would say that it's all for the best (and a first step). Even before the advent of social media, one could say that many views were being suppressed. And even though it's a bunch of shouting, it seems that some views are now being heard more. Give a round of applause for free speech, no matter how ugly.
Because that is what matters here. This shift is what's causing the shrillness, I dare say. It may continue, but it may be that it's only those who were used to hearing only their voice who are shouted down (or more so than before). That the Internet comments sections is part of this change is a good thing. Of course, I mentioned that some aspects of the mob mentality is no good (one cannot just shout, they must listen as well, and argue in good faith), but once we can move away from that, we can surely move towards more open discussions. We shall see, but I have hope.
On that note, dear reader, do not fret for a novella of mine will be up soon. A little bit of an odd piece of writing, it will be interesting to hear reactions. I will only be publishing short novels and larger from here on out. Until I see a reason to do otherwise, I will either send out the shorts for publishing elsewhere, or if it's too 'odd' I'll publish them here. It seems a little much to publish other, smaller pieces as ebooks. Though I will certainly try to make them available in any form possible. (update: that I recommend you signing up for the email newsletter as it will have stories not available elsewhere).
Some other articles that might pique your interest (ostensibly on all matters global or books):#This one is on the global conflict of the West and Islam as seen through the lens of the Rushdie affair.#This one is a list of the five best science fiction novels out there. #This one is an article about drone warfare and its effects on the world.# This one is about reading news in today's world. The solution is that global is better.# This one is a list of the best books of the 21st century# This one is a list of the best books of the 20th century#This on is an article with links to matters of the Iraq war and players not commonly known.
My book: Ministry of Bombs
is an exciting and unconventional take on the War on Terror.Thank you for reading, I understand how valuable your time is. If you found this story/musing interesting in any way, I would be grateful if you could share it. Getting the word out is an important part of growing my readership. You can sign up here to receive news and other goodies, such as free books (free shorts) here: http://eepurl.com/DX2In
Then Subscribe to my mailing list* indicates requiredEmail Address * First Name Last Name Email Format
htmltextmobile
And if you could give a reasonable tip using the donate button below, that would be greatly appreciated as well. All the best, and thanks again:
And so it goes
Of course, it seems that the summer is truly heating up (providing ever more evidence that increased heat does indeed cause more violence) around the world. With Ukraine and the Middle East being especially contentious. I find myself more and more removed from the zeitgeist: most of it consisting of shrill cries on facebook, twitter and the more insidious views on the news. Honestly, I visited facebook for the first time in months, and it was clowns on the left, jokers to the right (especially when one considers the Israeli conflict)... I was immediately disgusted and shut it down; mainly because I was about to go on a rant and shout everyone down.
Still, with the news and feeds seemingly so shrill, what's one to do? I mentioned how to deal with the new news paradigm that exists in the world today. Nevertheless, I think that there is some good that comes out of the current set up. First, it is allowing for more voices to be heard. Sure that leads to more misinformation, but as an adherent of the democratic ideal, I would say that it's all for the best. Even before the advent of social media, one could say that many views were being suppressed. And even though it's a bunch of shouting, it seems that some views are now being heard more. Give a round of applause for free speech, no matter how ugly.
Because that is what matters here. This shift is what's causing the shrillness, I dare say. It may continue, but it may be that it's only those who were used to hearing only their voice are getting shouted down. That the Internet comments sections is part of this change is a good thing. Of course, I mentioned that some aspects of the mob mentality is no good (one cannot just shout, they must listen as well, and argue in good faith), but once we can move away from that, we can surely move towards more open discussion. We shall see, but I have hope.
On that note, dear reader, do not fret for a novella of mine will be up soon. A little bit of an oddity, it will be out everywhere. I will only be publishing short novels and larger from here on out. Until I see a reason to do otherwise, I will either send out the shorts for publishing elsewhere, or if it's too 'odd' I will publish them here. It seems a little much to publish other, smaller pieces as ebooks. Though I will certainly try to make them available in any form possible.
Still, with the news and feeds seemingly so shrill, what's one to do? I mentioned how to deal with the new news paradigm that exists in the world today. Nevertheless, I think that there is some good that comes out of the current set up. First, it is allowing for more voices to be heard. Sure that leads to more misinformation, but as an adherent of the democratic ideal, I would say that it's all for the best. Even before the advent of social media, one could say that many views were being suppressed. And even though it's a bunch of shouting, it seems that some views are now being heard more. Give a round of applause for free speech, no matter how ugly.
Because that is what matters here. This shift is what's causing the shrillness, I dare say. It may continue, but it may be that it's only those who were used to hearing only their voice are getting shouted down. That the Internet comments sections is part of this change is a good thing. Of course, I mentioned that some aspects of the mob mentality is no good (one cannot just shout, they must listen as well, and argue in good faith), but once we can move away from that, we can surely move towards more open discussion. We shall see, but I have hope.
On that note, dear reader, do not fret for a novella of mine will be up soon. A little bit of an oddity, it will be out everywhere. I will only be publishing short novels and larger from here on out. Until I see a reason to do otherwise, I will either send out the shorts for publishing elsewhere, or if it's too 'odd' I will publish them here. It seems a little much to publish other, smaller pieces as ebooks. Though I will certainly try to make them available in any form possible.
July 15, 2014
[OM] The Franzenian/Franzenesque lean:
I recently wrote an article about the Twitter phenomena. I mentioned its use by the lynch mobs. There are weekly examples about its use for such (or the use of the Internet) reasons. But that’s not the only thing it’s used for (the same goes for a pitchfork). I mentioned some good things one can do with their Twitter account. The same goes for the internets at large.
Until recently I thought that for deep insight nothing beat books. All books are on the net, however I’m speaking of the tools that are specific to the internet (blogs, internet comments, twitter and so on). I was certain that these tools of the Internet were mainly a good conduit for interpersonal connections and provided initial fodder for deeper reads (leading to a book, be it nonfiction or fiction). Blogs and articles may have been close to an exception, but they still weren’t as good as a book (and in many ways they mimic those 'paper methods').
And when it came to fiction, or rather, to seeing a narrative unfold, there was little on the net that could beat books. But I believe that I was wrong in this respect.
Take Twitter. I bemoaned (perhaps taking a Franzenian lean) the 140 character format and claimed that it could only ever be a link to better things. This view, however, lacks imagination. I’ve seen people try to tweet stories through a series of tweets, but this doesn’t appear to be the way to best use the medium. Even if one were to manage to cram each tweet with a scene (or leave a cliff hanger, a reason to ’turn the tweet’), it wouldn’t work (that I've seen).What a proper narrative of tweeting needs (either naturally or unnaturally formed) is a series of different people, interacting with each other—much like characters in a play. We see this sometimes, usually when people fight over something (the aforementioned lynch mob is subtype of this). In these fights we see tension, but there is usually an amount of disengagement before it dies out. But there shouldn’t just be spats, but rather full on human dramas going on. And why not? Either actors and actresses can ad lib something, or real people should do it, or one talented person could do it. It could be for discussions; it could be for many things.
What sparked this idea? Mainly it was seeing the recent push by ISIS, and how they were, are, able to gain traction through their myriad of social media accounts. Some include a wikileaks style account, as well as a cats of ISIS (I kid you not) account. The humor in the latter had me thinking of why I hadn’t seen proper interaction with some other jihadis and enemies. Indeed, this needs to be changed otherwise we’ll see the chance for proper narrative drama (or something new?) pass.
To this end, when I hear that Twitter facilitated the Arab Spring in Egyp—from what I’ve heard, though I've never seen the proof. I pray that there will be something like a breakdown of all the Twitter interactions that led to people on the street (I’m sure our benevolent NSA is already studying them for patterns/predictive abilities). Therefore to take full advantage of the medium there would have to be a way to line up replies and retorts from multiple accounts (and not just a list of tweets).
But this isn’t confined to Twitter. Take Internet comments. Indeed, one could say that they end up providing quite the life to any article (for simply the train-wreck of humanity that they tend to be with trolls and counter trolls, and though I may read these comments, this gets old quick). But there are places, like reddit.com, where these comments take humorous tangential turns and end up in cat-gif fights where successive comments try to out-aww each other. Or one comment starts with a line from a movie and several other comments finish the entire scene.
But it seems to me that even this interaction is not taking full advantage of the medium. Again, a whole narrative with the article and the participating comments could unfold either naturally or with actors/actresses or a very skilled man with sock-puppets. Why not? It would add to what everyone has come to read and be entertained. I shall try to either provide an example of these internet narratives, or complete one myself. Ostensibly one could turn out to be as interesting, as deep, and as long as a novel...
(Note, "Franzenian/Franzenesque lean" refers to Franzen and his comments about Twitter... I have nothing against the man or his works)
Some other articles that might pique your interest (ostensibly on all matters global or books):#This one is on the global conflict of the West and Islam as seen through the lens of the Rushdie affair.#This one is a list of the five best science fiction novels out there. #This one is an article about drone warfare and its effects on the world.# This one is about reading news in today's world. The solution is that global is better.# This one is a list of the best books of the 21st century# This one is a list of the best books of the 20th century#This on is an article with links to matters of the Iraq war and players not commonly known.
My book: Ministry of Bombs is an exciting and unconventional take on the War on Terror.
Until recently I thought that for deep insight nothing beat books. All books are on the net, however I’m speaking of the tools that are specific to the internet (blogs, internet comments, twitter and so on). I was certain that these tools of the Internet were mainly a good conduit for interpersonal connections and provided initial fodder for deeper reads (leading to a book, be it nonfiction or fiction). Blogs and articles may have been close to an exception, but they still weren’t as good as a book (and in many ways they mimic those 'paper methods').
And when it came to fiction, or rather, to seeing a narrative unfold, there was little on the net that could beat books. But I believe that I was wrong in this respect.
Take Twitter. I bemoaned (perhaps taking a Franzenian lean) the 140 character format and claimed that it could only ever be a link to better things. This view, however, lacks imagination. I’ve seen people try to tweet stories through a series of tweets, but this doesn’t appear to be the way to best use the medium. Even if one were to manage to cram each tweet with a scene (or leave a cliff hanger, a reason to ’turn the tweet’), it wouldn’t work (that I've seen).What a proper narrative of tweeting needs (either naturally or unnaturally formed) is a series of different people, interacting with each other—much like characters in a play. We see this sometimes, usually when people fight over something (the aforementioned lynch mob is subtype of this). In these fights we see tension, but there is usually an amount of disengagement before it dies out. But there shouldn’t just be spats, but rather full on human dramas going on. And why not? Either actors and actresses can ad lib something, or real people should do it, or one talented person could do it. It could be for discussions; it could be for many things.
What sparked this idea? Mainly it was seeing the recent push by ISIS, and how they were, are, able to gain traction through their myriad of social media accounts. Some include a wikileaks style account, as well as a cats of ISIS (I kid you not) account. The humor in the latter had me thinking of why I hadn’t seen proper interaction with some other jihadis and enemies. Indeed, this needs to be changed otherwise we’ll see the chance for proper narrative drama (or something new?) pass.
To this end, when I hear that Twitter facilitated the Arab Spring in Egyp—from what I’ve heard, though I've never seen the proof. I pray that there will be something like a breakdown of all the Twitter interactions that led to people on the street (I’m sure our benevolent NSA is already studying them for patterns/predictive abilities). Therefore to take full advantage of the medium there would have to be a way to line up replies and retorts from multiple accounts (and not just a list of tweets).
But this isn’t confined to Twitter. Take Internet comments. Indeed, one could say that they end up providing quite the life to any article (for simply the train-wreck of humanity that they tend to be with trolls and counter trolls, and though I may read these comments, this gets old quick). But there are places, like reddit.com, where these comments take humorous tangential turns and end up in cat-gif fights where successive comments try to out-aww each other. Or one comment starts with a line from a movie and several other comments finish the entire scene.
But it seems to me that even this interaction is not taking full advantage of the medium. Again, a whole narrative with the article and the participating comments could unfold either naturally or with actors/actresses or a very skilled man with sock-puppets. Why not? It would add to what everyone has come to read and be entertained. I shall try to either provide an example of these internet narratives, or complete one myself. Ostensibly one could turn out to be as interesting, as deep, and as long as a novel...
(Note, "Franzenian/Franzenesque lean" refers to Franzen and his comments about Twitter... I have nothing against the man or his works)
Some other articles that might pique your interest (ostensibly on all matters global or books):#This one is on the global conflict of the West and Islam as seen through the lens of the Rushdie affair.#This one is a list of the five best science fiction novels out there. #This one is an article about drone warfare and its effects on the world.# This one is about reading news in today's world. The solution is that global is better.# This one is a list of the best books of the 21st century# This one is a list of the best books of the 20th century#This on is an article with links to matters of the Iraq war and players not commonly known.
My book: Ministry of Bombs
is an exciting and unconventional take on the War on Terror.
June 20, 2014
Ministry of Bombs Sale
From today until the 24th of June, Ministry of Bombs' kindle will be 75% off. Check it out today!
In the mountains of Yemen, rebellion brews and spits out terror into the world. In Pakistan, a nuclear scientist escapes. And an agent in America, Justice, sees this and understands that the world is in danger. He must find the scientist before the terrorists do. If he doesn't millions will die. Will he save the day? As he peers deeper into the world of terrorism and the war on terror, Justice finds that things are never as they seem to be. Not your average spy or thriller novel, this looks deep into the heart of terror. Dare to look inside!
In the mountains of Yemen, rebellion brews and spits out terror into the world. In Pakistan, a nuclear scientist escapes. And an agent in America, Justice, sees this and understands that the world is in danger. He must find the scientist before the terrorists do. If he doesn't millions will die. Will he save the day? As he peers deeper into the world of terrorism and the war on terror, Justice finds that things are never as they seem to be. Not your average spy or thriller novel, this looks deep into the heart of terror. Dare to look inside!
June 17, 2014
[OM] On the ISIS and reasons for current events in Iraq
The current (Jun2014) news from Iraq has many experts, including me, saying I told you so. For the rest of America it has evoked little more than an aroused yawn (though some seem to care about the veteran reactions to having fought for such an outcome). Nevertheless the videos from the ISIS have stoked my fellow Americans' resentment—the executions are ostensibly the worst—though most don't show the same revulsion to their own nation's executions on various peoples around the world. And as the ISIS resembles the Mongols in their advances and actions, cries sound for a reaction to these insipid warriors.
You see, I served in Iraq, and during my second trip there we had a cartographer attached to our team for a couple of weeks. He claimed to be an anthropologist, but I could smell something off about him, in the pauses when he talked, the glances of his eyes. I assumed it was the first time he’d been given a cover.
So what are the tribes and dialects here, I asked one day, walking into his office in defiance of the sign up front that said to never come in unless beckoned. He jumped a foot in the air, this old hunched over civilian with spotted skin, white thin hair, and a paunch that spoke of the better meals he was used to. He was studying a series of maps, and one especially large map on his wall, which had the city of Baghdad marked up with red Xs.
It says to knock before you enter, he said, trying to summon some bass from that belly of his.
Uh huh. You wanted to meet some local tomorrow, right? So tell me, what dialect is our AO in? I pressed.
The man spat out diffuse answers. I mocked the profession of cartography and he rose in vicious defense. At least he had heart.
The next day he hovered over the locals, deluging them with questions when I was out of the earshot. When I questioned him back on our firebase, I was met with silent and brooding stare. That evening, as a dust storm hit, the cartographer fell ill. I searched his room, ostensibly looking for medication that he may need refilled. Nothing of the sort was found. But I did see that he had maps, books of maps, and more maps. There were maps from the Ottoman Empire (or replicas, I assume, given the shape that they were in), from before the Mongol invasion, from the British Empire. All of them had marks around the Baghdad area—corresponding to the large map on the wall. The more books and maps I opened, the more the room lost its dusty cement aroma and the smell of stacks of an ancient library took over. I inhaled through my nose, dust spilling in from the cracks in the window as the storm continued, and felt a grave forbearance in my heart. I had to sit as I sensed the weight of history and felt overwhelmed.
What was the supposed anthropologist up to? And why would he lie to us? He had been sent down by higher and we were told to provide him with everything he needed. Not a light order in time of war. I stared at the map and wondered what the man could possibly be looking for. There had been rumors in the ranks about treasures that Saddam had buried here and there. But smarter men in the markets of Baghdad scoffed at that and said that the real money was contracting for Americans, or having a friend in Congress who would be willing to give a contract. That money made any money Saddam ever held pale in comparison.
Rockets rained down on our position, and as dust jumped into the air, and a punch filled my lungs, I knew that I was on to something. I walked to the medical room where our medic was working on the cartographer.
What’s up? I asked.
He’s a goner.
No evac?
Higher said no.
Odd. I went back to look for more, but knowing something was up, I took a handful of maps and stuffed them into my pocket. I knew better than to keep them in my room, hiding them between a couple of cinder blocks in the corner of the compound. The next day, as we picked up charred rubble, I noticed that our mechanic, an Iraqi from the neighborhood, staring at me. He only talked to me, so I kept his stare in mind.
A few minutes later men arrived; almost cliche in their sternness and suits (though the dust had turned the white shirts into dark yellow stained trash), they detained the anthropologist’s maps and body. They tried pushing us about but our weapons sergeant, a meathead, punched one, and they realized that they were on an unwatched firebase where disappearances wouldn’t be hard. They shut up, but I couldn’t help feel nervous as knots in my stomach kept me from eating.
They claimed a few maps were missing. When we told them to fuck off, they searched all our rooms under the gaze of a two star general who 'happened' to swing by. They found nothing and left. I went to talk to the mechanic. He had me drive out to the Iraqi Army compound.
There, in a dark room that smelled of smoke and mud, certain that I was about to be shot behind the ear, our mechanic had me meet one of the men who I had seen the cartographer talk to earlier. A small bald man, with one arm missing and kind eyes, he spoke fluent English. A former engineer he, Ahmed, was now selling cigarettes to make a living. His family was long dead, making the ground fertile for the future. When he stifled a cry, I held his hand. He nodded in appreciation and went on. The cartographer—he called him that—had been poisoned, murdered. By whom? He would be dead if he said who. Fair enough, didn’t care for the cartographer or his guardian angels, so I asked him to go on, was the man looking for a treasure?
No, nothing like that. But he was looking for a map. The map. I shrugged, assuming that perhaps it was some old Babylonian map that would fetch a decent price. Ahmed shook his head when I suggested this. No. No one poisoned for just a little bit of money. I begged to differ, but he went on. This map was somewhere deep underground. And not so much a map but a replica of the country. Iraq. An exact replica. Or the closest thing to it. I didn’t understand. The one armed engineer went on, incredulous that I knew nothing about this:
Apparently it was the Babylonians who came upon this idea, that a perfect replica of the world itself would be a world and become a way to control the larger real world. They, of course, didn’t have the technology to do this, but they tried. Many of their statues were attempts at this. As the civilization dissipated into a less focused set of cities this idea was forgotten. It was the first Muslims who brought back the possibility of this control through a map-replica. Their push to control the world was an attempt to herd together all the artisans of the world. They might have come close, but the several hundred years project failed.
They tried to keep the idea secret, but the Mongols heard about it (though to be fair, they had expanded just for the sake of it). They sacked Baghdad but couldn't find it. So they dragged artisans from there and across the world back to Mongolia. They failed. Some say it was because they tried to build it in Mongolia and not here, in Baghdad, that there was only a specific place in Baghdad even that would allow this map to work. And for the longest of times this replica map was forgotten, or the idea behind it. Some members of the Ottoman Empire, and some of the British and Nazis made attempts, but like your cartographer, they were stopped by the locals who had been taught through whispers that this map-replica needn’t come back to life.
The one armed man stopped. Humvees and helicopters were revving in the background, and my heart stopped. I flinched when I imagined a raid on my position. All I had was a pistol. I wasn’t supposed to be here. And the irony was I would die for some stupid theory about map-replicas controlling the world. The Humvees passed, as did the helicopters.
The man continued: It was Saddam who finally learned about this map-replica and its possibilities. And Saddam was smart. He decided a perfect replica of the world would be too hard to make. So he had some engineers and cartographers make one of a single town. It didn’t work. But Saddam was cruel enough to know how to make something like this work. He had the entire town arrested and removed... the map-replica worked.
Yes. He was able to control that small part of the world through the perfect replica. Slowly, the map-replica expanded. Now that Saddam knew the map-replica needed living replicas on it, and even he couldn’t kill everyone in Iraq, he added replicas of people. To make sure he had the correct position of the replicas, he would make every man woman and child stand in front of their house or street corner, and the map-replica would be expanded.
The one armed man looked at me. I was sure that my disbelief was plastered on my face—Arab countries were full of conspiracy theories, but this one seemed especially outlandish—but he went on:
That’s why he invaded Iran. They had some artisans he needed and they wouldn’t hand him over. Kuwait had found out about the map and was threatening to tell the whole world. That’s why your country invaded. After all, you have enough oil and weapons of mass destruction are only another tactic of war, but when Bush heard that he could control the world, he wanted the map replica. But nothing got it out of Saddam. That’s why they hanged him.
The man stopped talking, and looked at me. His breath was stale with hints of dried dates and fish. He widened his eyes and pressed my hand. I nodded my head, wanting to leave, because I was certain he was crazy. I was also thinking that if this was what war does to someone’s mind, someone who seems intelligent, then I had to leave right away. The man held on to my hand. He needed me to believe.
Sure, I said, that makes sense.
He waved a hand in disgust. It doesn’t make sense. No one in their right mind would believe it. But that’s the truth. Why else the maps? His questions? His death?
I thought for a second. Maybe it did make sense. And a thought wormed its way from my gut to my mind. I looked into the man’s eyes. He was telling the truth. And it did make sense. I asked him if he knew where the map was. He shook his head. It was unknown. But shouldn’t it remain that way? I agreed. Exchanging information with him, I left and wished him luck.
I burned the maps during the next dust storm. When I returned from my deployment I kept tabs on Ahmed, my one-armed former engineer protecting a secret in a lawless land. As the Americans left—most in power had given up on finding this map-replica—a power vacuum was formed. Ahmed—probably influenced by my emails which probably said something about humans being no different from bacteria in a petri dish—became a local militia leader cum Iraqi Army commander in his neighborhood, got himself contracts, and got himself a robotic arm, as well as an exoskeleton. People spoke of him in hushed whispers.
It was only a few months ago that I got an email from him, this one with a dark all-caps subject line. He had linked an article which showed that the ISIS had taken over an ancient town in Syria. The article was more concerned with the terrorists who were selling the artifacts to fund their mayhem. Or war. Or movement, depending on whom you speak with. Ahmed pointed out that this was the least of the world’s worries. He sent me another academic article on some of these artifacts. Filled with unpronounceable jargon, I took Ahmed’s word that it was in fact a location for the map-replica that would allow these people to control the world. Even the US. Ahmed claimed that the Iranians had only now heard about it, and that’s why they’d sent troops too (after all, he said, since when did Persians care for Arabs?). And that's the truth.
Think what you will, but this is why the ISIS is making a push for Baghdad. But therein lies the rub. We allow the powers that be interfere and they will learn about and want the map-replica. What then? I'm not sure, but this map-replica needs to be on your mind when you think of a solution to Iraq's problem.
You see, I served in Iraq, and during my second trip there we had a cartographer attached to our team for a couple of weeks. He claimed to be an anthropologist, but I could smell something off about him, in the pauses when he talked, the glances of his eyes. I assumed it was the first time he’d been given a cover.
So what are the tribes and dialects here, I asked one day, walking into his office in defiance of the sign up front that said to never come in unless beckoned. He jumped a foot in the air, this old hunched over civilian with spotted skin, white thin hair, and a paunch that spoke of the better meals he was used to. He was studying a series of maps, and one especially large map on his wall, which had the city of Baghdad marked up with red Xs.
It says to knock before you enter, he said, trying to summon some bass from that belly of his.
Uh huh. You wanted to meet some local tomorrow, right? So tell me, what dialect is our AO in? I pressed.
The man spat out diffuse answers. I mocked the profession of cartography and he rose in vicious defense. At least he had heart.
The next day he hovered over the locals, deluging them with questions when I was out of the earshot. When I questioned him back on our firebase, I was met with silent and brooding stare. That evening, as a dust storm hit, the cartographer fell ill. I searched his room, ostensibly looking for medication that he may need refilled. Nothing of the sort was found. But I did see that he had maps, books of maps, and more maps. There were maps from the Ottoman Empire (or replicas, I assume, given the shape that they were in), from before the Mongol invasion, from the British Empire. All of them had marks around the Baghdad area—corresponding to the large map on the wall. The more books and maps I opened, the more the room lost its dusty cement aroma and the smell of stacks of an ancient library took over. I inhaled through my nose, dust spilling in from the cracks in the window as the storm continued, and felt a grave forbearance in my heart. I had to sit as I sensed the weight of history and felt overwhelmed.
What was the supposed anthropologist up to? And why would he lie to us? He had been sent down by higher and we were told to provide him with everything he needed. Not a light order in time of war. I stared at the map and wondered what the man could possibly be looking for. There had been rumors in the ranks about treasures that Saddam had buried here and there. But smarter men in the markets of Baghdad scoffed at that and said that the real money was contracting for Americans, or having a friend in Congress who would be willing to give a contract. That money made any money Saddam ever held pale in comparison.
Rockets rained down on our position, and as dust jumped into the air, and a punch filled my lungs, I knew that I was on to something. I walked to the medical room where our medic was working on the cartographer.
What’s up? I asked.
He’s a goner.
No evac?
Higher said no.
Odd. I went back to look for more, but knowing something was up, I took a handful of maps and stuffed them into my pocket. I knew better than to keep them in my room, hiding them between a couple of cinder blocks in the corner of the compound. The next day, as we picked up charred rubble, I noticed that our mechanic, an Iraqi from the neighborhood, staring at me. He only talked to me, so I kept his stare in mind.
A few minutes later men arrived; almost cliche in their sternness and suits (though the dust had turned the white shirts into dark yellow stained trash), they detained the anthropologist’s maps and body. They tried pushing us about but our weapons sergeant, a meathead, punched one, and they realized that they were on an unwatched firebase where disappearances wouldn’t be hard. They shut up, but I couldn’t help feel nervous as knots in my stomach kept me from eating.
They claimed a few maps were missing. When we told them to fuck off, they searched all our rooms under the gaze of a two star general who 'happened' to swing by. They found nothing and left. I went to talk to the mechanic. He had me drive out to the Iraqi Army compound.
There, in a dark room that smelled of smoke and mud, certain that I was about to be shot behind the ear, our mechanic had me meet one of the men who I had seen the cartographer talk to earlier. A small bald man, with one arm missing and kind eyes, he spoke fluent English. A former engineer he, Ahmed, was now selling cigarettes to make a living. His family was long dead, making the ground fertile for the future. When he stifled a cry, I held his hand. He nodded in appreciation and went on. The cartographer—he called him that—had been poisoned, murdered. By whom? He would be dead if he said who. Fair enough, didn’t care for the cartographer or his guardian angels, so I asked him to go on, was the man looking for a treasure?
No, nothing like that. But he was looking for a map. The map. I shrugged, assuming that perhaps it was some old Babylonian map that would fetch a decent price. Ahmed shook his head when I suggested this. No. No one poisoned for just a little bit of money. I begged to differ, but he went on. This map was somewhere deep underground. And not so much a map but a replica of the country. Iraq. An exact replica. Or the closest thing to it. I didn’t understand. The one armed engineer went on, incredulous that I knew nothing about this:
Apparently it was the Babylonians who came upon this idea, that a perfect replica of the world itself would be a world and become a way to control the larger real world. They, of course, didn’t have the technology to do this, but they tried. Many of their statues were attempts at this. As the civilization dissipated into a less focused set of cities this idea was forgotten. It was the first Muslims who brought back the possibility of this control through a map-replica. Their push to control the world was an attempt to herd together all the artisans of the world. They might have come close, but the several hundred years project failed.
They tried to keep the idea secret, but the Mongols heard about it (though to be fair, they had expanded just for the sake of it). They sacked Baghdad but couldn't find it. So they dragged artisans from there and across the world back to Mongolia. They failed. Some say it was because they tried to build it in Mongolia and not here, in Baghdad, that there was only a specific place in Baghdad even that would allow this map to work. And for the longest of times this replica map was forgotten, or the idea behind it. Some members of the Ottoman Empire, and some of the British and Nazis made attempts, but like your cartographer, they were stopped by the locals who had been taught through whispers that this map-replica needn’t come back to life.
The one armed man stopped. Humvees and helicopters were revving in the background, and my heart stopped. I flinched when I imagined a raid on my position. All I had was a pistol. I wasn’t supposed to be here. And the irony was I would die for some stupid theory about map-replicas controlling the world. The Humvees passed, as did the helicopters.
The man continued: It was Saddam who finally learned about this map-replica and its possibilities. And Saddam was smart. He decided a perfect replica of the world would be too hard to make. So he had some engineers and cartographers make one of a single town. It didn’t work. But Saddam was cruel enough to know how to make something like this work. He had the entire town arrested and removed... the map-replica worked.
Yes. He was able to control that small part of the world through the perfect replica. Slowly, the map-replica expanded. Now that Saddam knew the map-replica needed living replicas on it, and even he couldn’t kill everyone in Iraq, he added replicas of people. To make sure he had the correct position of the replicas, he would make every man woman and child stand in front of their house or street corner, and the map-replica would be expanded.
The one armed man looked at me. I was sure that my disbelief was plastered on my face—Arab countries were full of conspiracy theories, but this one seemed especially outlandish—but he went on:
That’s why he invaded Iran. They had some artisans he needed and they wouldn’t hand him over. Kuwait had found out about the map and was threatening to tell the whole world. That’s why your country invaded. After all, you have enough oil and weapons of mass destruction are only another tactic of war, but when Bush heard that he could control the world, he wanted the map replica. But nothing got it out of Saddam. That’s why they hanged him.
The man stopped talking, and looked at me. His breath was stale with hints of dried dates and fish. He widened his eyes and pressed my hand. I nodded my head, wanting to leave, because I was certain he was crazy. I was also thinking that if this was what war does to someone’s mind, someone who seems intelligent, then I had to leave right away. The man held on to my hand. He needed me to believe.
Sure, I said, that makes sense.
He waved a hand in disgust. It doesn’t make sense. No one in their right mind would believe it. But that’s the truth. Why else the maps? His questions? His death?
I thought for a second. Maybe it did make sense. And a thought wormed its way from my gut to my mind. I looked into the man’s eyes. He was telling the truth. And it did make sense. I asked him if he knew where the map was. He shook his head. It was unknown. But shouldn’t it remain that way? I agreed. Exchanging information with him, I left and wished him luck.
I burned the maps during the next dust storm. When I returned from my deployment I kept tabs on Ahmed, my one-armed former engineer protecting a secret in a lawless land. As the Americans left—most in power had given up on finding this map-replica—a power vacuum was formed. Ahmed—probably influenced by my emails which probably said something about humans being no different from bacteria in a petri dish—became a local militia leader cum Iraqi Army commander in his neighborhood, got himself contracts, and got himself a robotic arm, as well as an exoskeleton. People spoke of him in hushed whispers.
It was only a few months ago that I got an email from him, this one with a dark all-caps subject line. He had linked an article which showed that the ISIS had taken over an ancient town in Syria. The article was more concerned with the terrorists who were selling the artifacts to fund their mayhem. Or war. Or movement, depending on whom you speak with. Ahmed pointed out that this was the least of the world’s worries. He sent me another academic article on some of these artifacts. Filled with unpronounceable jargon, I took Ahmed’s word that it was in fact a location for the map-replica that would allow these people to control the world. Even the US. Ahmed claimed that the Iranians had only now heard about it, and that’s why they’d sent troops too (after all, he said, since when did Persians care for Arabs?). And that's the truth.
Think what you will, but this is why the ISIS is making a push for Baghdad. But therein lies the rub. We allow the powers that be interfere and they will learn about and want the map-replica. What then? I'm not sure, but this map-replica needs to be on your mind when you think of a solution to Iraq's problem.
June 2, 2014
[OM] Torture
A few weeks ago torture came back into the spotlight when the Senate and the CIA had a small spat and fought over the fact that the CIA spied on Senate aides who were sent over to look over torture reports. Some were, I'd say luckily, leaked. Nevertheless, though this infighting has died down, I want to take another look at torture. One would think that in this day and age there shouldn't be much of a discussion when it comes to torture, but unfortunately there is.
It's one of many legacies of the War on Terror (continued to this day, though without that name, and on different terms, mainly that torture chambers are replaced by drones). One of these legacies has been a complete kowtowing to national security and its polities while democratic institutions get short thrift. Indeed that the CIA thought spying on the Senate was something it could get away with seems like a perfect example. The need for oversight is overlooked and we get people trying to hide things (for our good, of course; it should be noted, as per Chomsky, that people who lie and claim national security care more for their own skins and are merely protecting themselves from their own people) while those trying to shine a light are somehow anit-American. Nevermind the checks and balances that are inherent to our Constitution.
And though it appears that this episode has quieted down (I think people want to forget it), I don't think it has done so through consensus, but rather through an odd need to forget. But given that the basics haven't been brought to light, we cannot walk into the future and assume that a need to torture won't come up again. Indeed, some of the arguments against torture are predicated on the fact that there aren't many attacks. So what happens when there are many attacks? Also, the state of our prison system indicates that levels of torture exist everywhere (especially when isolation is included). First, a definition of torture (I'm using an international one, rather than national)Article 1 of the United Nations Convention Against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (UNCAT):“... 'torture' means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.”
The setup: A few months ago, after an handful of interesting chess games with a friend, we discussed a new movie, at the time, Zero Dark Thirty, the movie about the hunt for Osama Bin Laden. And from everything that I had heard, it was a movie that justified torture. Now, the director herself had said that she was allowed some artistic license to talk about torture, or better provide a base from which to start the talk, but I heard otherwise from journalists (on my side of the torture argument). And knowing what I know about Hollywood and the general militaristic nature of movies (and the director), I didn’t want to see more of the same.
I said that I didn’t care to see this movie. I was then asked if I was for or against torture. I said I was against it. Why? I paused. I’d thought on this question many times, and time and time again I'd come to the conclusion that to support such an act would be to go against human nature and to go against what our nation stood for. But it would also be wrong because everything I'd read, or at least a few things from a few experts, said that it didn’t work. It doesn’t work I said (I find it interesting that this was my goto explanation). Is that the only reason, it doesn't work? I wasn’t expecting so concise and piercing a question, but there it was. Another pause. Yes, that’s the only reason, I said.
For some reason that felt like a weak reason, this opposition based soley on efficacy (my tormentor was for torture, though I’m sure he wouldn’t phrase it that way, but as something of a last resort in serious times). It may be that I’m too much a product of my time and that I cannot truly trust feelings and so I fall back on: "does it work or not?".
The problem: In other words, I would be for torture if someone can come up with the evidence that it works. And still that was the only argument I offered. I repeated that it didn’t work, not going into the multiple other variables that go into this reasoning: that it may work on any given person, but if you’re trying to paint a full on picture through intelligence, it ends up being a near-useless, horrific and revenge based way of doing things.
Sure, if you grab the right guy he might, under torture, tell you everything. But he might embellish. He might add a few things to satisfy his torturer. And if you grab the wrong man, he might tell you what you want to hear. That too will distort your intelligence picture.
The ones who are tortured, what are you going to do with them? Murder them in cold blood? That might be possible, but are we really trying to walk down the line where we start to mimic the SS or Stalin? Perhaps. But know that once you torture someone and release them (though currently there’s indefinite detention that we seem to be using) into the population, they will not be the same. And to say that they will be extreme, or be most likely to fall into that category is an understatement (the 1984 view that a man becomes docile after torture isn't always the case). It is widely known that the torture chambers of Egypt helped to create the 9-11 terrorists.
And what of turning the population (the one being targeted, as well as the many other agents who would be against such actions) against oneself? This also plays a part into what we want to be as a nation: the SS or a beacon of freedom. We torture and we’re handing over a recruiting tool to others. I will admit that these last two items seem to be weakest (or not wholly proven), though even the advocates of torture seem to understand it as they've tried to keep all this information under wraps.
Ticking Time Bomb:
And the ticking time bomb scenario? What happens when you have one person in front of you and they (possibly, of course, remember it’s never 100%) know where a nuclear bomb is, and they don’t want to help, what do you do? The people who love this scenario love it because they never want you to step back and look at the bigger picture. But let’s put aside the fact that you don’t know if this person knows anything (or that torture will bring out the correct information). Let’s assume you’re 100% certain. So what do you do? The biggest argument is that one person is worth less than a million. So what’s his skin to those others? Of course, one should ask where does this calculation stop? If one is nothing compared to one million, then what of two? Surely this person should be tortured to save two lives?
But, you should know that there needs to be more than the morality of numbers. Remember that you would never run a nation by this moral code (usually it ends up being rights that rule the day). And let's not forget that this method can also be used against our own soldiers. After all, shouldn’t a pilot who was carpet bombing civilian cities in North Vietnam, shouldn’t they be tortured to extract as much information to save more lives? This is why a matter of rights works better than a numerical-based morality. Also, think about how we view other nations who use torture.
What is torture, anyways:
Another argument is that what we do/did is not torture but rather something more benign, something befitting the word "civilized". We aren’t pulling off nails or raping etc, what we’re doing would be considered training for many of our soldiers. But at the end of the day pain is pain and that people can agree on the types of torture, even if some are less obviously vile than others. I should note here that stress positions are used in North Korean concentration camps. And insofar as our own domestic prisons can be considered, so too is isolation (but for the most part this doesn’t seem to get as much press).
Final conclusion:
I’m sure I've not come close to discussing all the angles on this subject—that would take a proper book. And if you have other questions on the matter, or want to point out something that I’m missing, than please do. But I stand by my efficacy argument, whereby torture is not something that works in the short term (for any given individual person it might) and that it tears apart one’s over all intelligence picture, especially as more people are tortured (and you live by the moral calculus of one tortured < 2 lives saved). So my argument can be one of efficacy of the method as well as the morality code of the torturer (allowing them to torture too many with that numbers game, the method never truly working). It turns our country into something that it’s not. Better to gain intelligence the other way. Turn a prisoner and send them back etc.
Some of the other arguments seem to fall into "being good/just" and I'm not sure how properly argue them, though they are strong points that seem to agree with my "gut". Still they seem religious in ways, and I can't agree with that (though I see the weakness of my position here).
Once again, as with all situations (especially when it comes to national security and those who 'defend' or claim to are all too willing to use propaganda for their own purposes) we must see who is trying to subvert the Constitution. Is it those who hide things from the public eye who we need to watch, not those trying to bring things to light. And with the torture debate, as with many others, it's clear which side doesn't want the facts out.
Scifi future:
What happens when we can give a pill and gain information, no pain involved? I’m not sure. I would only say that such methods, if they ever come into being, should always be used with discretion and testing. For if they are meant to do something innocuous without doing so, then I’m guessing that they will still cause many of the same residual traces of torture after wards (how could they not? Following the same pathways that other more physical methods did so as well). But I suppose I'd leave that for another day.
Thoughts?
Some other articles that are related to the subject matter here.# How to read the news today (relevant because even an article like this must be read with an eye towards history)
# An article about Drone Warfare today.
# An article about the fatwa on Rushdie
Also some books on the matter:The Interrogator: The Story of Hanns Scharff, Luftwaffe's Master Interrogator
Torture and the Twilight of Empire: From Algiers to Baghdad (Human Rights and Crimes Against Humanity)
It's one of many legacies of the War on Terror (continued to this day, though without that name, and on different terms, mainly that torture chambers are replaced by drones). One of these legacies has been a complete kowtowing to national security and its polities while democratic institutions get short thrift. Indeed that the CIA thought spying on the Senate was something it could get away with seems like a perfect example. The need for oversight is overlooked and we get people trying to hide things (for our good, of course; it should be noted, as per Chomsky, that people who lie and claim national security care more for their own skins and are merely protecting themselves from their own people) while those trying to shine a light are somehow anit-American. Nevermind the checks and balances that are inherent to our Constitution.
And though it appears that this episode has quieted down (I think people want to forget it), I don't think it has done so through consensus, but rather through an odd need to forget. But given that the basics haven't been brought to light, we cannot walk into the future and assume that a need to torture won't come up again. Indeed, some of the arguments against torture are predicated on the fact that there aren't many attacks. So what happens when there are many attacks? Also, the state of our prison system indicates that levels of torture exist everywhere (especially when isolation is included). First, a definition of torture (I'm using an international one, rather than national)Article 1 of the United Nations Convention Against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (UNCAT):“... 'torture' means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.”
The setup: A few months ago, after an handful of interesting chess games with a friend, we discussed a new movie, at the time, Zero Dark Thirty, the movie about the hunt for Osama Bin Laden. And from everything that I had heard, it was a movie that justified torture. Now, the director herself had said that she was allowed some artistic license to talk about torture, or better provide a base from which to start the talk, but I heard otherwise from journalists (on my side of the torture argument). And knowing what I know about Hollywood and the general militaristic nature of movies (and the director), I didn’t want to see more of the same.
I said that I didn’t care to see this movie. I was then asked if I was for or against torture. I said I was against it. Why? I paused. I’d thought on this question many times, and time and time again I'd come to the conclusion that to support such an act would be to go against human nature and to go against what our nation stood for. But it would also be wrong because everything I'd read, or at least a few things from a few experts, said that it didn’t work. It doesn’t work I said (I find it interesting that this was my goto explanation). Is that the only reason, it doesn't work? I wasn’t expecting so concise and piercing a question, but there it was. Another pause. Yes, that’s the only reason, I said.
For some reason that felt like a weak reason, this opposition based soley on efficacy (my tormentor was for torture, though I’m sure he wouldn’t phrase it that way, but as something of a last resort in serious times). It may be that I’m too much a product of my time and that I cannot truly trust feelings and so I fall back on: "does it work or not?".
The problem: In other words, I would be for torture if someone can come up with the evidence that it works. And still that was the only argument I offered. I repeated that it didn’t work, not going into the multiple other variables that go into this reasoning: that it may work on any given person, but if you’re trying to paint a full on picture through intelligence, it ends up being a near-useless, horrific and revenge based way of doing things.
Sure, if you grab the right guy he might, under torture, tell you everything. But he might embellish. He might add a few things to satisfy his torturer. And if you grab the wrong man, he might tell you what you want to hear. That too will distort your intelligence picture.
The ones who are tortured, what are you going to do with them? Murder them in cold blood? That might be possible, but are we really trying to walk down the line where we start to mimic the SS or Stalin? Perhaps. But know that once you torture someone and release them (though currently there’s indefinite detention that we seem to be using) into the population, they will not be the same. And to say that they will be extreme, or be most likely to fall into that category is an understatement (the 1984 view that a man becomes docile after torture isn't always the case). It is widely known that the torture chambers of Egypt helped to create the 9-11 terrorists.
And what of turning the population (the one being targeted, as well as the many other agents who would be against such actions) against oneself? This also plays a part into what we want to be as a nation: the SS or a beacon of freedom. We torture and we’re handing over a recruiting tool to others. I will admit that these last two items seem to be weakest (or not wholly proven), though even the advocates of torture seem to understand it as they've tried to keep all this information under wraps.
Ticking Time Bomb:
And the ticking time bomb scenario? What happens when you have one person in front of you and they (possibly, of course, remember it’s never 100%) know where a nuclear bomb is, and they don’t want to help, what do you do? The people who love this scenario love it because they never want you to step back and look at the bigger picture. But let’s put aside the fact that you don’t know if this person knows anything (or that torture will bring out the correct information). Let’s assume you’re 100% certain. So what do you do? The biggest argument is that one person is worth less than a million. So what’s his skin to those others? Of course, one should ask where does this calculation stop? If one is nothing compared to one million, then what of two? Surely this person should be tortured to save two lives?
But, you should know that there needs to be more than the morality of numbers. Remember that you would never run a nation by this moral code (usually it ends up being rights that rule the day). And let's not forget that this method can also be used against our own soldiers. After all, shouldn’t a pilot who was carpet bombing civilian cities in North Vietnam, shouldn’t they be tortured to extract as much information to save more lives? This is why a matter of rights works better than a numerical-based morality. Also, think about how we view other nations who use torture.
What is torture, anyways:
Another argument is that what we do/did is not torture but rather something more benign, something befitting the word "civilized". We aren’t pulling off nails or raping etc, what we’re doing would be considered training for many of our soldiers. But at the end of the day pain is pain and that people can agree on the types of torture, even if some are less obviously vile than others. I should note here that stress positions are used in North Korean concentration camps. And insofar as our own domestic prisons can be considered, so too is isolation (but for the most part this doesn’t seem to get as much press).
Final conclusion:
I’m sure I've not come close to discussing all the angles on this subject—that would take a proper book. And if you have other questions on the matter, or want to point out something that I’m missing, than please do. But I stand by my efficacy argument, whereby torture is not something that works in the short term (for any given individual person it might) and that it tears apart one’s over all intelligence picture, especially as more people are tortured (and you live by the moral calculus of one tortured < 2 lives saved). So my argument can be one of efficacy of the method as well as the morality code of the torturer (allowing them to torture too many with that numbers game, the method never truly working). It turns our country into something that it’s not. Better to gain intelligence the other way. Turn a prisoner and send them back etc.
Some of the other arguments seem to fall into "being good/just" and I'm not sure how properly argue them, though they are strong points that seem to agree with my "gut". Still they seem religious in ways, and I can't agree with that (though I see the weakness of my position here).
Once again, as with all situations (especially when it comes to national security and those who 'defend' or claim to are all too willing to use propaganda for their own purposes) we must see who is trying to subvert the Constitution. Is it those who hide things from the public eye who we need to watch, not those trying to bring things to light. And with the torture debate, as with many others, it's clear which side doesn't want the facts out.
Scifi future:
What happens when we can give a pill and gain information, no pain involved? I’m not sure. I would only say that such methods, if they ever come into being, should always be used with discretion and testing. For if they are meant to do something innocuous without doing so, then I’m guessing that they will still cause many of the same residual traces of torture after wards (how could they not? Following the same pathways that other more physical methods did so as well). But I suppose I'd leave that for another day.
Thoughts?
Some other articles that are related to the subject matter here.# How to read the news today (relevant because even an article like this must be read with an eye towards history)
# An article about Drone Warfare today.
# An article about the fatwa on Rushdie
Also some books on the matter:The Interrogator: The Story of Hanns Scharff, Luftwaffe's Master Interrogator
Torture and the Twilight of Empire: From Algiers to Baghdad (Human Rights and Crimes Against Humanity)
May 20, 2014
On Twitter and social media
Last year, Franzen made a splash with his comments on Twitter. There was a huge backlash. And most of these attacks, a lot on Twitter, seemed to be focused on mocking him personally. Some claimed that he didn't get it, or was too old. No one focused on either giving the man a lesson on using Twitter (if there was one to be had), or refuting the specific words he spoke against the medium (one that only 5% of the world uses). Though part of Franzen's rant, at times, seemed to take on the Internet as a whole, he did want to talk about better discussions in general. (note, I don't agree with most of what he said or his viewpoints; neither do I agree with the reaction dished out at him).I will say this: though Twitter, and other social media outlets, make it easier to find out people with similar tastes, or to find the important sources of information, they also lead to what can only be called a mob mentality. I will explain more later, but this ability to rally the forces isn't always bad (ostensibly it allowed a revolution to occur in some parts of the world and has spurned governments into positive action in others), especially if you look at it through the lens of people power. But is this always right? And, more importantly, does it allow for in depth discussions (something Franzen was leaning towards, I assume)?
As I mentioned above, someone who is so inclined, can easily use their Twitter feed to find links to many interesting topics. And the 140 character limit has many positives, the main one is brevity, it cuts off the long-winded, and it allows for quick and easy communications across networks (it's a breeze to read through a feed). But what it also allows, unfortunately, is a certain amount of unspoken language, as is needed in any brief statement. That leads to a higher level of tribalism (I admit, I have nothing but anecdotal information for this).
For example, when someone has to say something it will be better to say (and be read by) those who have the same viewpoint. Thus any utterance would be differently received by liberals versus conservative. This need to find a tribe—and to find a tribe with the same context as you, thereby maximizing your comfort when tweeting, as well as maximizing the ability to say more with 140 characters—exists. It exists and can be a very strong collecting factor when it comes to social media like Twitter. That's not all bad, as looking for people with similar tastes would be a huge reason to use social media.
Nevertheless, this tendency to tribalism is also a huge reason that the mob effect is strong. Everyone is trying to say to be concise, pulling from their mutual viewpoints. This allows for the same people to herd and rush forward as a mob. We see this recently in the shift to silence and not engage in proper dialogue. I’m not saying that before Twitter mob mentality did not exist, or that there was some golden age of discussions. Indeed, this mob mentality is probably what Franzen has (it is the most prominent part of Twitter, especially for those who don’t use it) decried.
But he shouldn’t. He should only decry the tendency for humans, Twitter or not, to herd. And only in certain situations, because isn’t outrage for good things (another part of the democratizing effect that social media speaks to) a positive phenomenon? And as I mentioned earlier, the ability to gain feeds from multiple news sources and people (hopefully to include those that one doesn't agree with) is not to be mocked. It’s powerful. And the links which lead to more in-depth articles than the original 140 character are not to be mocked either.
So, Franzen, I see your point, but I dare say that you need to engage Twitter and people more. You can create a section of Twitter that’s free of inane tweets. There are plenty of places that do provide intelligent discourse, you can always add to that. And as for me? I’ll keep trying to improve and engage others on this medium.
@nlowhim
Some other articles that are related to the subject matter here.
# How to read the news today (relevant because even an article like this must be read with an eye towards history)
# An article about Drone Warfare today.
# An article about the fatwa on Rushdie
As I mentioned above, someone who is so inclined, can easily use their Twitter feed to find links to many interesting topics. And the 140 character limit has many positives, the main one is brevity, it cuts off the long-winded, and it allows for quick and easy communications across networks (it's a breeze to read through a feed). But what it also allows, unfortunately, is a certain amount of unspoken language, as is needed in any brief statement. That leads to a higher level of tribalism (I admit, I have nothing but anecdotal information for this).
For example, when someone has to say something it will be better to say (and be read by) those who have the same viewpoint. Thus any utterance would be differently received by liberals versus conservative. This need to find a tribe—and to find a tribe with the same context as you, thereby maximizing your comfort when tweeting, as well as maximizing the ability to say more with 140 characters—exists. It exists and can be a very strong collecting factor when it comes to social media like Twitter. That's not all bad, as looking for people with similar tastes would be a huge reason to use social media.
Nevertheless, this tendency to tribalism is also a huge reason that the mob effect is strong. Everyone is trying to say to be concise, pulling from their mutual viewpoints. This allows for the same people to herd and rush forward as a mob. We see this recently in the shift to silence and not engage in proper dialogue. I’m not saying that before Twitter mob mentality did not exist, or that there was some golden age of discussions. Indeed, this mob mentality is probably what Franzen has (it is the most prominent part of Twitter, especially for those who don’t use it) decried.
But he shouldn’t. He should only decry the tendency for humans, Twitter or not, to herd. And only in certain situations, because isn’t outrage for good things (another part of the democratizing effect that social media speaks to) a positive phenomenon? And as I mentioned earlier, the ability to gain feeds from multiple news sources and people (hopefully to include those that one doesn't agree with) is not to be mocked. It’s powerful. And the links which lead to more in-depth articles than the original 140 character are not to be mocked either.
So, Franzen, I see your point, but I dare say that you need to engage Twitter and people more. You can create a section of Twitter that’s free of inane tweets. There are plenty of places that do provide intelligent discourse, you can always add to that. And as for me? I’ll keep trying to improve and engage others on this medium.
@nlowhim
Some other articles that are related to the subject matter here.
# How to read the news today (relevant because even an article like this must be read with an eye towards history)
# An article about Drone Warfare today.
# An article about the fatwa on Rushdie
May 19, 2014
[OM] On Censorship
Recently there have been some scuffles with "censorship" and arguments about our first amendment. Even one of my favorite webcomics, xkcd, seems to have weighed in (no correctly, I might add).
Now that we know what censorship means (and that there are legal and illegal aspects to carrying it out), we move on to the right to free speech. For us Americans it's an important part of the Bill of Rights and how we define ourselves as citizens:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
This is the basis of free speech in the US, though there are limits such as crying fire in a crowded theater and so forth. This ideal has spread to even the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. One thing that should be noted is that this right to free speech is mainly focused on the government imposing rules, and not about other citizens inhibiting that right. Indeed, the xkcd cartoon and many peoples' reactions are based on this fact.
So let's go back to the events of the past few months or so. What to make of them? As a citizen of a nation which prides (or should, in any event) itself as a beacon of freedom of speech, this need to silence or make people 'go away' seems to be against the spirit of the law (again, I'm not saying anything about the legality of these reactions, merely that it takes away from the idea of what freedom of speech means or implies).
Take the xkcd cartoon, for example. On the surface it's correct. There is nothing legally wrong with people outside the government trying to silence others (in certain ways), or not wanting to listen to them. Indeed, many of the opinions that I heard were offensive to me, and I wouldn't care to listen too much to such opinions. But to go so far as to silence them? No. Even though I understand that a lot of the views being shouted down recently tend to be seen as coming from groups that have tried, through other means, to silence others. That shouldn't inform one's decisions.
The lens with which one needs to look at freedom of speech are the reasons that it works so well. It is about having a free and open discourse, an airing of ideas. This allows for a society to be able to not only vent, but to best decide how to move forward. What happens when someone spits out a view on life which you see to be horrendous? You point out why that view is either negative or no longer, given what society has decided, viable or fair etc. You don't close your ears or try to shout them out, or try to silence them. Even if that silencing is legal. And to maintain this atmosphere, we should all fight to maintain such an ability.
Now this needs some borders. Of course you don't engage the man on the corner yelling about the end of the world (I don't, and it would be hypocritical to say otherwise). If the person you try to engage is obviously not interested in a practical discussion, then you have a right to move on and not listen. What happens when a lot of people are that man on the corner, everywhere, causing you great distress? The first thing to examine would be why so many are spouting such odd things? I dare say the ability to vent is important and can help one point out the underlying reasons to mass-men-on-the-corner-saying-that-the-world-is-coming-to-an-end. I would not silence them.
When it comes to some of these recent stories, I find myself taking sides with people I don't agree with, or people who have done things I don't agree with (and most of these people will, economically speaking, be fine since they are very well off, almost making my stance seem pointless), because on principle, it is wrong to silence them. In fact, I would go so far as to say that silencing them does nothing to prove a point. Again, engage those ideas and show the world why they are wrong or use it as an opportunity to get to the underlying issues, which are usually more important. Don't silence them.
The best example that I've seen is the Sterling situation. But Coates has an excellent article on the matter. And as usual with race issues (or really any issue Coates writes about) Coates is correct. In many ways silencing people like Sterling and Bundy doesn't help the over all racial situation in our country, even though they may appear to be the perfect personifications for what's wrong in our nation/world. Indeed, these people who have been silenced recently—such as Rice who was prevented from speaking at a commencement—seem to be the epitome of power, and representations thereof. But what do we gain from silencing them on forums? Nothing. Perhaps their ignorance is allowed to go underground (as a meme) and live on. Better to shed light on it and engage it in a forum.
I also want to discuss the reason these outcries have been happening. I can't say I'm entirely against it: the democratic power of social media. It allows for people to get their thoughts out, and to help join forces. Indeed in many ways these latest outcries appear to be the powerless reaching out against the powerful, or entrenched powers. In these times it's not a wholly incorrect reaction. But to focus it on silencing ideas seems to be a wrong use. I would dare say that it ends up being an impotent use that doesn't get to the core frustrations that give rise to these actions.
And I think I should say that I'm not saying that there shouldn't be consequences for taking away people's rights (even when done legally). As citizens we are perfectly within our rights to boycott. But take note of the great MLK. Boycotts and other methods (to which social media would be perfectly suited) were used, but they were used to bring light to injustice and to then engage in a discussion of ideas. Silencing (even when it was used against them) was not the point.
Thoughts?
Some other articles that are related to the subject matter here.
# How to read the news today (relevant because even an article like this must be read with an eye towards history)
# An article about Drone Warfare today.
# An article about the fatwa on Rushdie
Now that we know what censorship means (and that there are legal and illegal aspects to carrying it out), we move on to the right to free speech. For us Americans it's an important part of the Bill of Rights and how we define ourselves as citizens:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
This is the basis of free speech in the US, though there are limits such as crying fire in a crowded theater and so forth. This ideal has spread to even the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. One thing that should be noted is that this right to free speech is mainly focused on the government imposing rules, and not about other citizens inhibiting that right. Indeed, the xkcd cartoon and many peoples' reactions are based on this fact.
So let's go back to the events of the past few months or so. What to make of them? As a citizen of a nation which prides (or should, in any event) itself as a beacon of freedom of speech, this need to silence or make people 'go away' seems to be against the spirit of the law (again, I'm not saying anything about the legality of these reactions, merely that it takes away from the idea of what freedom of speech means or implies).
Take the xkcd cartoon, for example. On the surface it's correct. There is nothing legally wrong with people outside the government trying to silence others (in certain ways), or not wanting to listen to them. Indeed, many of the opinions that I heard were offensive to me, and I wouldn't care to listen too much to such opinions. But to go so far as to silence them? No. Even though I understand that a lot of the views being shouted down recently tend to be seen as coming from groups that have tried, through other means, to silence others. That shouldn't inform one's decisions.
The lens with which one needs to look at freedom of speech are the reasons that it works so well. It is about having a free and open discourse, an airing of ideas. This allows for a society to be able to not only vent, but to best decide how to move forward. What happens when someone spits out a view on life which you see to be horrendous? You point out why that view is either negative or no longer, given what society has decided, viable or fair etc. You don't close your ears or try to shout them out, or try to silence them. Even if that silencing is legal. And to maintain this atmosphere, we should all fight to maintain such an ability.
Now this needs some borders. Of course you don't engage the man on the corner yelling about the end of the world (I don't, and it would be hypocritical to say otherwise). If the person you try to engage is obviously not interested in a practical discussion, then you have a right to move on and not listen. What happens when a lot of people are that man on the corner, everywhere, causing you great distress? The first thing to examine would be why so many are spouting such odd things? I dare say the ability to vent is important and can help one point out the underlying reasons to mass-men-on-the-corner-saying-that-the-world-is-coming-to-an-end. I would not silence them.
When it comes to some of these recent stories, I find myself taking sides with people I don't agree with, or people who have done things I don't agree with (and most of these people will, economically speaking, be fine since they are very well off, almost making my stance seem pointless), because on principle, it is wrong to silence them. In fact, I would go so far as to say that silencing them does nothing to prove a point. Again, engage those ideas and show the world why they are wrong or use it as an opportunity to get to the underlying issues, which are usually more important. Don't silence them.
The best example that I've seen is the Sterling situation. But Coates has an excellent article on the matter. And as usual with race issues (or really any issue Coates writes about) Coates is correct. In many ways silencing people like Sterling and Bundy doesn't help the over all racial situation in our country, even though they may appear to be the perfect personifications for what's wrong in our nation/world. Indeed, these people who have been silenced recently—such as Rice who was prevented from speaking at a commencement—seem to be the epitome of power, and representations thereof. But what do we gain from silencing them on forums? Nothing. Perhaps their ignorance is allowed to go underground (as a meme) and live on. Better to shed light on it and engage it in a forum.
I also want to discuss the reason these outcries have been happening. I can't say I'm entirely against it: the democratic power of social media. It allows for people to get their thoughts out, and to help join forces. Indeed in many ways these latest outcries appear to be the powerless reaching out against the powerful, or entrenched powers. In these times it's not a wholly incorrect reaction. But to focus it on silencing ideas seems to be a wrong use. I would dare say that it ends up being an impotent use that doesn't get to the core frustrations that give rise to these actions.
And I think I should say that I'm not saying that there shouldn't be consequences for taking away people's rights (even when done legally). As citizens we are perfectly within our rights to boycott. But take note of the great MLK. Boycotts and other methods (to which social media would be perfectly suited) were used, but they were used to bring light to injustice and to then engage in a discussion of ideas. Silencing (even when it was used against them) was not the point.
Thoughts?
Some other articles that are related to the subject matter here.
# How to read the news today (relevant because even an article like this must be read with an eye towards history)
# An article about Drone Warfare today.
# An article about the fatwa on Rushdie
May 15, 2014
[OM] Top Eleven Rebel Books
Also known as rebellion books. Of course there are many great non-fiction books looking into this part of all people's history, but I'm most interested in novels that cover this subject matter (and hopefully ones that do it well). The most important step is providing a definition of rebellion. It could, after all, mean a child rebelling against his parents, or perhaps adulthood with all its travails. That is indeed one of the definitions:
"the action or process of resisting authority, control, or convention."
But I'm more interested in the larger rebellion. The one with life and death consequences. Read the following definition:
"an act of violent or open resistance to an established government or ruler."
Fighting against a larger power. Does the fight have to be just? Perhaps not. It can just be a fight, even if it's misled (though some of you further on the left might not agree, the Bolshevik revolution could be viewed as one such rebellion). Does it have to be a fight between groups? A coup, after all, is another form of rebellion (or a significant change in power), though it might merely end up being a single person's power struggle against another's. It's not entirely clear (and for those who would think it clear, I shall adjust my definition if you can provide a good enough alternative/clarification), but I will put my explanations for each book and why is best represents rebellion. Some are clear, others aren't quite (some might not even have the act of rebelling as their focal point). So without further ado, here is the basic definition: a book with the best representation of resistance to a ruling power. This resistance is one that has dire consequences, while the representation should at least shed more light on the nature of the rebel than a cursory look at the newspaper would normally show (when those of us stare off at those nether regions of the world where rebellion seems to take multiple forms).
Not the best definition, but here goes:
Half of a Yellow Sun
People who frequent this blog will no doubt not be surprised that this book is on another list. Easily of Classic status, this novel about the Biafra region's rebellion is done in the Adichie's masterful and subtle manner. Not an easy read, given the tough material, Adichie manages to weave a story with multiple viewpoints that combine to show how this tragedy started, and finished.
Under Western Eyes
Here is Conrad's take on the messy period in Russia that occurred before the Communists took over. Note the man caught in a tight spot, and not really willing to give it up for a movement he cares nothing for, and that may well change the trajectory of his comfortable life. Note the idealistic revolutionary not taken entirely to the life he's leading, and yet all the more willing to throw bombs for his cause. Note his family left in the wake. Note the hypocrisies in the powers that be, but also in the rebels. And all of this done in Conrad's beautiful prose and sharp wit.
The War of the End of the World
Brilliant. This book might be my favorite one on this list. Perhaps because it's still relevant to some parts of the world, where nations are trying to be formed, or the idea of a nation is still being tested. Even for those of us who live in regions of relative stability, this book has something to say about competing forms of power (religion, nationalists, idealists) and how they interact with people and gain their power from those people and the willingness of those people to do what must be done.
Animal Farm
A story of a revolution betrayed. This book best shows how even the best of intentions can lead a rebel astray and come full circle. In other words, to become that which created the rebels to begin with.
Weep Not, Child
This book is short, but sweet. Following a handful of people in Kenya during tumultuous times, this novel is a great testament to the forces that helped create, then usurp colonialism in that part of the world. Everything has consequences, and this tight novel helps to highlight how those consequences changed lives and history in Kenya.
We
One of the best scifi books is also a book about rebels. Against the machine, or the State, that would easily crush all of humanity. A classic in all rights, this book merely looks at how society can, even for a greater good, appear to take away the small things that make life worth living.
Game of Thrones
Fancy seeing fantasy here on this list. But make no mistake, this is a serious book with a deep look into the acts that go into rebellion. Sure it takes a more entertaining route than most of the other books on this list, but it still manages to convey the acts and motivations that create usurpers.
The Master and Margarita
While on the surface this book might not seem a proper candidate for this list, it does have the elements of a book about rebels (though perhaps not the common ones). With two stories, one about Roman times, and one about Moscow during the Great Purge, this novel might be more about the crushing of rebels, but it still manages to contribute something to the list (especially when one knows something about the author).
Cloud Atlas
Another novel that would seem to be on the penumbra of a rebellion's definition. More about the cycle of subjugation and consequent reactions to, I contend that this novel does show (through multiple genres and over hundreds, if not thousands of years) what sort of spirits can help stir a rebellion.
Things Fall Apart
Perhaps not about outright rebellion, this novel shows what happens to a culture as an outside, insidious force creeps in, slowly changing the chemistry of the people and finally... Well, one doesn't need much imagination to think it through. Nevertheless, there is at least one man's attempted rebellion, and for that this book is a great addition to this list.
Fahrenheit 451
Another scifi book for this list. Bradbury's book is short but concise. About a future where reading is highly frowned upon, and people are addicted to other forms of communication, Bradbury's protagonist comes to the realization that he must rebel if not to save a group, at least himself. In many ways this book is about the rebellion of the spirit.
So there's the list. Why eleven? Why these? If you have some that should be added, please make a note or email me. Some other articles that might pique your interest (ostensibly on all matters global or books):
#This one is a top five list of global novels.
#This one is on the global conflict of the West and Islam as seen through the lens of the Rushdie affair.
#This one is a list of the five best science fiction novels out there.
#This one is an article about drone warfare and its effects on the world.
# This one is about reading news in today's world. The solution is that global is better.
# This one is a list of the best books of the 21st century
# This one is a list of the best books of the 20th century
#This on is an article with links to matters of the Iraq war and players not commonly known.
Perhaps one day one of my books will make this list. I am proud to say that Ministry of Bombs & The Struggle Trilogy
meet the specifications for this list, but isn't quite there yet. 
"the action or process of resisting authority, control, or convention."
But I'm more interested in the larger rebellion. The one with life and death consequences. Read the following definition:
"an act of violent or open resistance to an established government or ruler."
Fighting against a larger power. Does the fight have to be just? Perhaps not. It can just be a fight, even if it's misled (though some of you further on the left might not agree, the Bolshevik revolution could be viewed as one such rebellion). Does it have to be a fight between groups? A coup, after all, is another form of rebellion (or a significant change in power), though it might merely end up being a single person's power struggle against another's. It's not entirely clear (and for those who would think it clear, I shall adjust my definition if you can provide a good enough alternative/clarification), but I will put my explanations for each book and why is best represents rebellion. Some are clear, others aren't quite (some might not even have the act of rebelling as their focal point). So without further ado, here is the basic definition: a book with the best representation of resistance to a ruling power. This resistance is one that has dire consequences, while the representation should at least shed more light on the nature of the rebel than a cursory look at the newspaper would normally show (when those of us stare off at those nether regions of the world where rebellion seems to take multiple forms).
Not the best definition, but here goes:
Half of a Yellow Sun
People who frequent this blog will no doubt not be surprised that this book is on another list. Easily of Classic status, this novel about the Biafra region's rebellion is done in the Adichie's masterful and subtle manner. Not an easy read, given the tough material, Adichie manages to weave a story with multiple viewpoints that combine to show how this tragedy started, and finished.Under Western Eyes
Here is Conrad's take on the messy period in Russia that occurred before the Communists took over. Note the man caught in a tight spot, and not really willing to give it up for a movement he cares nothing for, and that may well change the trajectory of his comfortable life. Note the idealistic revolutionary not taken entirely to the life he's leading, and yet all the more willing to throw bombs for his cause. Note his family left in the wake. Note the hypocrisies in the powers that be, but also in the rebels. And all of this done in Conrad's beautiful prose and sharp wit.The War of the End of the World
Brilliant. This book might be my favorite one on this list. Perhaps because it's still relevant to some parts of the world, where nations are trying to be formed, or the idea of a nation is still being tested. Even for those of us who live in regions of relative stability, this book has something to say about competing forms of power (religion, nationalists, idealists) and how they interact with people and gain their power from those people and the willingness of those people to do what must be done.Animal Farm
A story of a revolution betrayed. This book best shows how even the best of intentions can lead a rebel astray and come full circle. In other words, to become that which created the rebels to begin with.Weep Not, Child
This book is short, but sweet. Following a handful of people in Kenya during tumultuous times, this novel is a great testament to the forces that helped create, then usurp colonialism in that part of the world. Everything has consequences, and this tight novel helps to highlight how those consequences changed lives and history in Kenya.We
One of the best scifi books is also a book about rebels. Against the machine, or the State, that would easily crush all of humanity. A classic in all rights, this book merely looks at how society can, even for a greater good, appear to take away the small things that make life worth living.
Game of Thrones
Fancy seeing fantasy here on this list. But make no mistake, this is a serious book with a deep look into the acts that go into rebellion. Sure it takes a more entertaining route than most of the other books on this list, but it still manages to convey the acts and motivations that create usurpers.
The Master and Margarita
While on the surface this book might not seem a proper candidate for this list, it does have the elements of a book about rebels (though perhaps not the common ones). With two stories, one about Roman times, and one about Moscow during the Great Purge, this novel might be more about the crushing of rebels, but it still manages to contribute something to the list (especially when one knows something about the author).
Cloud Atlas
Another novel that would seem to be on the penumbra of a rebellion's definition. More about the cycle of subjugation and consequent reactions to, I contend that this novel does show (through multiple genres and over hundreds, if not thousands of years) what sort of spirits can help stir a rebellion.
Things Fall Apart
Perhaps not about outright rebellion, this novel shows what happens to a culture as an outside, insidious force creeps in, slowly changing the chemistry of the people and finally... Well, one doesn't need much imagination to think it through. Nevertheless, there is at least one man's attempted rebellion, and for that this book is a great addition to this list.
Fahrenheit 451
Another scifi book for this list. Bradbury's book is short but concise. About a future where reading is highly frowned upon, and people are addicted to other forms of communication, Bradbury's protagonist comes to the realization that he must rebel if not to save a group, at least himself. In many ways this book is about the rebellion of the spirit.
So there's the list. Why eleven? Why these? If you have some that should be added, please make a note or email me. Some other articles that might pique your interest (ostensibly on all matters global or books):
#This one is a top five list of global novels.
#This one is on the global conflict of the West and Islam as seen through the lens of the Rushdie affair.
#This one is a list of the five best science fiction novels out there.
#This one is an article about drone warfare and its effects on the world.
# This one is about reading news in today's world. The solution is that global is better.
# This one is a list of the best books of the 21st century
# This one is a list of the best books of the 20th century
#This on is an article with links to matters of the Iraq war and players not commonly known.
Perhaps one day one of my books will make this list. I am proud to say that Ministry of Bombs
& The Struggle Trilogy meet the specifications for this list, but isn't quite there yet.
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.
