Ramblings...

[partly]

Rambling. Somewhat politically connected. All personal.



I watch the news. I read the news. I pay attention to what's going on in the world. I listen to the opinions and pontification that appears equally in the news, the workplace, webpages, live journals and local restaurants and bars.

Everyone has an opinion. And most of them have an "I am right and only a complete moron would disagree with me" type of an opinion. They write all their little essays and articles and they go to great lengths to illustrate how right they are.

And most of them suffer from exactly the same problem: they paint the world in very bold strokes of black and white.

There is a protest group down by the courthouse every weekend or so, and they had a big rally a couple of weeks ago. Lots of signs: "No war for oil". I'd love to jump in and join them, but the cynic in me wants to know how many of them drove their cars to the rally and will head home to nice warm houses and use all those wonderful products made from petroleum. And then I'm a little confused as to how much oil we actually get from Iraq and how much more we will get once we go to war.

I'm all for this live and let live ideal. Only for that to work, both sides have to want to "live and let live", and I'm not really sure that's the case. There is a fairly large Mennonite/Amish community around here. They operate two wonderful stores where I buy bulk spices and all those really nifty food items that big supermarkets don't carry. I can get Occident flour from them; it makes great bread. They have been part of the community for many years and they never say that, in order for them to continue with their life and lifestyle, the rest of society has to stop existing. They don't seem to feel that "American Culture" just by existing poses an insurmountable threat to their beliefs.

I really hate the media. I really do. I can dredge up some respect those outlets that are up front about their angle and beliefs. I don't agree with them and I generally get pissed when I read them, but at least they are obvious. It's the so-called "unbiased" media that bugs me. During the Gulf War I remember reading a rather indignant account of a reporter who was upset because the "Military Censors" wanted him to change a word -- one word -- in his copy. He used it as an example of how the "establishment" was micromanaging the public's opinion. The reporter had chosen a word that had many negative connotations and the censors wanted to change it to a much more positive word. The problem word -- and I really wish I could remember the exact wording problem -- implied a casual disregard for human life, if not an outright enjoyment of the horrors of war. Now, I'm not going to get in to trying to defend military censors here. No, what I found interesting was how indignant this guy was because "the government was trying to "manipulate" public opinion when obviously that was his job.

Then there is this whole "Human Shield" brigade that is heading over to the war zones to lay themselves out on targets in order to.... well, to die, I suppose. If anyone can really explain it to me, I'd be amazed. Do they really think that non-Muslim, non-Iraqi people are more valuable then Muslim, Iraqi people? Do they think that if a government is so willing to wantonly kill innocent women and children they would stop at killing a few dissenters? Do they really think that the Iraqi government sees them as anything other than good publicity, this conflict's "Hanoi Jane", if you will? Do they really believe that American Public will actually be more upset at their deaths? Do they really think we are that bigoted and evil?

I guess I'm not cut out to be a pacifist. If you're in an apartment building and you hear sounds of abuse and beatings coming from next door, what do you do? Do you call the police, anonymously place that call for help that brings intervention? Would you call if you had to leave your name -- and would that answer depend on how big and bad the guy was who was going to be arrested? What if you knew that there would be a fight and confrontation? Would that change whether or not you call the police? What if the police were people you loved and cared for and they were going into harms way? Or what if there were no police and you had to do it all?

There is a term: "Sins of the world" and a concept that we all carry the sins of the world around with us. I think the "sin" we carry with us is the acceptance of evil because we are afraid of the consequences of fighting it. We add to it every time we say "Those things happen" or "That's not my concern -- it's their private family business" or "They don't really want help". And we add to it every time we are unwilling to do what needs to be done because it is hard and ugly and dangerous and doesn't fit our little whitewashed vision of what "right" is.

You know, I don't know what the answer is. But you know what? Whatever the answer is, it's not going to be easy, because life isn't easy. There isn't going to be a comet falling from the sky and taking out the government of your choice.

And the next person that tells me that the answer is easy, is going to get punched.

Comments

[crantz.livejournal.com]

To the beating thing...if I had to interfere, I would. It's a habit of mine Kori really hates. I keep walking into other people's fights. I guess I know I'm bigger and stronger then the other people and it always seems so unfair. Especially since it's usually one person being pinned and beaten around.

God. No idea on my perspective about wars except I don't want anything to do with it. I don't understand enough of any of it to form a opinion. Just worry.

[finabair.livejournal.com]

That's a good analogy. What I hate most about apartment living is *wondering* whether that fight upstairs is just an argument with stamping feet, or something more.

I mean, yeah, I've called the cops on neighbors. Particularly the one where the woman was screaming, "Get your hands off me!" I've called the cops and had them show up, and called and had them not show. And yet - this was at the old place - there were other times when I wondered if I *should* be calling, and didn't. Because you can't just *know* what's going on.

And yeah, there are times when you can see what's going on and do something about it - me, I'm all for blackmailing people into not picking fights with each other, like the time the upstairs neighbor was shouting obscenities at the neighborkids, who were riding a bike with no brakepads past and hitting the brakes so they made this horrible squealing noise. The upstairs guy's yelling was only egging them on, and the combination was getting on MY nerves, plus I feared the upstairs neighbor really was violent. So I picked up my camera, walked out, and snapped a photo of the kids. Then I walked back in, after glaring at the upstairs neighbor who was trying to cheer me on.

The kids left, and he shut up.

I wish that sort of thing ALWAYS worked, but alas, usually there IS no sweet solution to conflicts.

And I really wish folks would stop pretending there WAS.

[powerpynt.livejournal.com]

After WW2, The US offered Stalin rebuilding funds in the spirit of the Marshal Plan with the caveat that the Eastern European countries they now occupied would be left with a modicum of autonomy. Stalin refused of course, and so the cold war began.

Had he accepted, we might still be looking at the Berlin wall, arms race still fully engaged. While there were certainly mitigating factors, in the end, one man's supreme arrogance destroyed Soviet communism...and that man wasn't Reagan.

Kim Jong Il wants a check, a blank one preferrably. His arrogant policy of Army first is starving his people in a land with no viable markets, no real export capability and no source of creating it's own capital. So he chooses the deepest pockets to blame for his citizen's childrens demise, and screams "a pox on you all" while the world waits for America to pay the ransom.

This is all as complex as humanity gets and anyone that thinks otherwise is the true moron. Wars are started, atrocities in the spirit of the killing fields begin and countries rise and fall on the word of one human being at a time and as I'm not so sure what my wife might do from day to day, how could I possibly know what Kim or his ilk will do given a variety of options.

I am a supporter at the moment, but each time GW gives a speech about Iraq being the answer to the Israel crisis, I grimace and shake my head.

The world shouts that the US is not the world cop, and then tells us we must fix Korea. Go figure. And as Russia is pummeling the Chechens, France is spanking the Ivory Coast and China is slamming it's will on Tibet, all without UN approval, they tell us we have no business starting a war in the middle east, no matter what the cause.

I have found one pundit that speaks a middle ground of sorts, and is a breath of fresh air in a sea of nerve gas. Thomas Friedman is a very interesting read and puts a different and well thought out spin on all this.

I empathise hon. It is our business to be informed; to take a stand. But it's a damn confusing state we live in and a lot of work to stay ahead of the curve. I appreciate your penning your thoughts. It's only by understanding each other, one human at a time, that we will ever find a way to clean up the mess. Nice work love; well said

[amilyn.livejournal.com]

My biggest concern about our government's current behavior wrt Iraq is as follows:

It is a given that: The US doesn't like Iraq (notwithstanding our gvmt having put the leader we dislike in power...shh). Iraq doesn't like the US. The US doesn't like how Iraq treats its people. The US insists that Iraq has/is developing weapons that they could (and presumably would) use to damage the US or her citizens if given the opportunity.

If we, however, attack Iraq based on that given, what is the next step?

Is it then a given that: The US doesn't like North Korea [or insert-your-own-country name here]. North Korea doesn't like the US. The US doesn't like how North Korea treats its people. The US knows that North Korea has/is developing weapons (since they told us so!) that they could (and presumably would) use to damage the US or her citizens if given the opportunity.

What other governments will assume that this paradigm, once used, might apply to them?

To what other governments will our government apply this once the precedent is set?

How long would it be before the fear of us, as the country with the most economic and military power in the world, drove countries thinking they might be next on our hit list to band together to try and stop us?

This is what scares me.

Also, just how many more people will become fundamentalists because the US is, by attacking Iraq, seeming to prove the point of those who insist that the US hates Muslims and Arabs and wants specifically to rid the earth of them? How many more terrorists will be spurred to action? How many more attacks would be levied against Americans at home and abroad in retaliation?

I do think that Saddam Hussein is bad for his country, his people, his region. I think that they and we would be better off were he no longer in power. I dislike the precedent outlined above that I believe we'd be setting to say that, in spite of that, I don't think we would be wise to attack without a specific provocation or without international support.

I am troubled by the idea of letting injustices go because it's "not our business". Of course, then the question comes of how we can exist in an international community with a cast of sovereign countries if one country is going to police their internal behavior, no matter how abhorrent. What is this country doing that is abhorrent to other countries [the death penalty, the death penalty for minors, abortion, democracy, not having state sanction/widespread practice of any particular religion].

I think that our track record for "nation-building", which started with the incredibly effective rebuilding of West Germany and Japan, has had an abyssmal track record since then.

I don't know what the good solution is. I wish I did.

I do think, though, that the precedent of taking unilateral action without specific military provocation, so basically because we don't like someone (no matter how legitimate that dislike is), put us in far greater danger in the long run, and that scares me.

Most of my thinking on this is hypothetical, but I do think that it is not far-flung "what if" thinking, but fairly grounded speculation.