Time magazine is floating the idea of invading Myanmar (Burma) as a means of alleviating the disastrous conditions in the aftermath of the tsunami. The Myanmar government is stubbornly refusing nearly all humanitarian aid, and simultaneously failing to care for the Burmese themselves.
Regardless of opinions on the efficacy of military invasions for the purpose of promoting "humanitarianism," I found this quote particularly ironic:
"That's why it's time to consider a more serious option: invading Burma. Some observers, including former USAID director Andrew Natsios, have called on the U.S. to unilaterally begin air drops to the Burmese people regardless of what the junta says. The Bush Administration has so far rejected the idea — "I can't imagine us going in without the permission of the Myanmar government," Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Thursday."
I am curious if these members of the Bush administration even briefly realize how absurd they sound. They are willing to unilaterally invade and occupy a country that also had a dictatorial leader, who quite certainly gave no permission to have himself overthrown, and then proceed to ensure the deaths of at least 800,000 individuals by this point, all without batting an eye. However, the unilateral dropping of food without the Myanmar government's permission is beyond imagining by the likes of Gates and others in the administration.
I am not saying that a military invasion and occupation of Myanmar is in any way a good idea. The notion of "humanitarian interventionism" is by no means cut and dry, and most of the time you can't trust a government's claim to be seeking the good of a people in the slightest, especially when military force is involved, and especially when it is at the behest of the U.S. government. However, the level of absurdity in the double standards used to approach foreign policy is astounding. Of course, Myanmar has no meaningful oil deposits, and U.S. corporate assets there are far less vital, so this markedly different treatment is not quite so irrational if understood from the perspective of the true policymakers in this country.
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1739053,00.html?cnn=yes
Saturday, May 10, 2008
Monday, April 21, 2008
A shorter post, I promise... Jeremiah Wright and social hypocrisy
The corporate media, with Obama jumping in line (to save his political butt), has been having a field day espousing how "hateful" and "un-American" Reverend Wright's 20 second looped speech is, and how he is both acting unethically and as some sort of threat to society.
In wonderfully Orwellian fashion, Wright states political realities, and is denounced by racists like Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, and their assorted goon squads as some sort of crazed black radical and deviant. As soon as historical fact becomes a terrible inconvenience to the status quo, it becomes"un-American" to speak of it.
We'll play a fun game. I'll put up a quote, and you decide whether it sounds like the evil, un-American demagogue Jeremiah Wright, or the beloved civil rights figure Martin Luther King, Jr. :
"We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye. We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back into our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost."
That one, for a warm up, was obviously Wright if you use the context clues in his quote. Let's try another:
"We supported Zionism shamelessly while ignoring the Palestinians and branding anybody who spoke out against it as being anti-Semitic."
This is Wright. I don't see much discrepancy between King's criticism's of the U.S. government's policies against the third world and this one.
The issue when presented in the media, however, never raises the question of the truth or falsity of Wright's assertions. They simply equate any statement that is critical of U.S. governmental policy as "anti-American," and the speech is magically filtered from the acceptable, unspoken limits of mainstream discussion. If the mainstream media were actually serving the purpose of deriving truth from a situation, then the questions they would have to ask would look entirely different from those they are currently asking, and more importantly, neglecting to ask. Here are the major claims of Wright's speech. Let us, rather than gasp in jingoistic horror at the suggestion that the U.S. government is something other than a benevolent force of virtue and goodness in this world, examine simply the validity of Wright's statements:
Why are the responses to Wright's speech completely ignoring questions concerning the validity or invalidity of his statements? I have my own ideas. What is more important, however, is the recognition of the occurrence of this largely involuntary mental filtering process and the set of paradigmatic assumptions and prejudices that many within the media and society at large carry. We should worry when making statements of fact lead to being branded as a "radical." What does that say about our society when recognition of historical fact is seen as "radical," and thus by definition outside of the mainstream of thought? When speaking truth to power becomes a crime, those who tell the truth will be the criminals.
Here is an excellent video rebutting one of the Fox News Corporation's goons. Simply listening to the "interviewer" shows what kind of unethical "journalists" that corporate whore of a "news" manufacturing company employs in order to generate its messages.
In wonderfully Orwellian fashion, Wright states political realities, and is denounced by racists like Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, and their assorted goon squads as some sort of crazed black radical and deviant. As soon as historical fact becomes a terrible inconvenience to the status quo, it becomes"un-American" to speak of it.
We'll play a fun game. I'll put up a quote, and you decide whether it sounds like the evil, un-American demagogue Jeremiah Wright, or the beloved civil rights figure Martin Luther King, Jr. :
"We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye. We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back into our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost."
That one, for a warm up, was obviously Wright if you use the context clues in his quote. Let's try another:
"They asked if our own nation wasn't using massive doses of violence to solve its problems, to bring about the changes it wanted. Their questions hit home, and I knew that I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed in the ghettos without having first spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today -- my own government. For the sake of those boys, for the sake of this government, for the sake of hundreds of thousands trembling under our violence, I cannot be silent."
Crazed black lunatic? No, the proclamation that the U.S. government is the greatest purveyor of violence in the world was made by MLK, the despised black radical speaking truth to power 40 years ago."We supported Zionism shamelessly while ignoring the Palestinians and branding anybody who spoke out against it as being anti-Semitic."
This is Wright. I don't see much discrepancy between King's criticism's of the U.S. government's policies against the third world and this one.
The issue when presented in the media, however, never raises the question of the truth or falsity of Wright's assertions. They simply equate any statement that is critical of U.S. governmental policy as "anti-American," and the speech is magically filtered from the acceptable, unspoken limits of mainstream discussion. If the mainstream media were actually serving the purpose of deriving truth from a situation, then the questions they would have to ask would look entirely different from those they are currently asking, and more importantly, neglecting to ask. Here are the major claims of Wright's speech. Let us, rather than gasp in jingoistic horror at the suggestion that the U.S. government is something other than a benevolent force of virtue and goodness in this world, examine simply the validity of Wright's statements:
"We took this country by terror away from the Sioux, the Apache, Arikara, the Comanche, the Arapaho, the Navajo. Terrorism.
Anyone with a passing familiarity with American history, with the exception of Ayn Rand and the people that write the "Politically Incorrect Guides" will admit this. War, genocide, deceit, legal slaughter and militarism wiped many indigenous people off of the map in the most literal of ways. These actions were also clearly terrorism of both the state and non-state variety.
"We took Africans away from their country to build our way of ease and kept them enslaved and living in fear. Terrorism.
Again, most everyone in this millennium, with the exception of Strom Thurmond, would likely recognize the truth of this statement.
"We bombed Grenada and killed innocent civilians, babies, non-military personnel.
True.
"We bombed the black civilian community of Panama with stealth bombers and killed unarmed teenage and toddlers, pregnant mothers and hard working fathers.
True.
"We bombed Qaddafi's home, and killed his child. Blessed are they who bash your children's head against the rock.
Whether you approve of murdering civilians or not, this is factually true. The Biblical verse is obviously simply for emphasis.
"We bombed Iraq. We killed unarmed civilians trying to make a living. We bombed a plant in Sudan to pay back for the attack on our embassy, killed hundreds of hard working people, mothers and fathers who left home to go that day not knowing that they'd never get back home.
True, true, true, and true.
"We bombed Hiroshima. We bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon and we never batted an eye.
True, true, and mathematically true. Now, his use of the word "we" raises contention, and rightfully so. I know that "I" bombed no one, and likely neither did you. The state through its military apparatus did. So, he does make a mistake in equating the State with the people living under it. Truman writes at length justifying his use of nuclear weapons, so it appears that he at least was unlikely to have held many regrets.
"...Kids playing in the playground. Mothers picking up children after school. Civilians, not soldiers, people just trying to make it day by day.
True.
"We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff that we have done overseas is now brought right back into our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost.
Whether you are a Zionist or not, the U.S. government has supported military and state violence against Palestinians, primarily through the state of Israel and through the support of its nuclear armament, military build-up, colonial expansionism and aggressive local apartheid against non-Jews. Also, the CIA did work against Nelson Mandela in support of the apartheid regime, delivering him to authorities for arrest and imprisonment. This is admitted by the CIA. Reagan even labeled Nelson Mandela a terrorist.
"Violence begets violence. Hatred begets hatred. And terrorism begets terrorism. A white ambassador said that y'all, not a black militant."
I also remember a particular Jew that these indignant white Christians (and Obama) claim to be fans of who said something to the effect of "He who lives by the sword dies by the sword." When that statement translates into a critical appraisal of real-world policy and its consequences, it is conveniently obscured into uselessness as a broad metaphor of "be nice." Middle-class America likes non-violence and bumper-sticker religious phrases when it secures its own limited crumbs of the pie, but once such maxims translate into a demand for change, and a recognition of a painful reality, such phrases are conveniently covered by a barrage of "Support Our Troops" stickers. This cognitive dissonance can also be seen in the sterilization of MLK, and the transformation of what was a truly revolutionary, egalitarian and anti-imperialist message into a simplistic and grossly distorted "can't we just forget that race is still an issue?" sort of plea.
"...Not a reverend who preaches about racism. An ambassador whose eyes are wide open and who is trying to get us to wake up and move away from this dangerous precipice upon which we are now poised. The ambassador said the people we have wounded don't have the military capability we have. But they do have individuals who are willing to die and take thousands with them. And we need to come to grips with that."
True.
Why are the responses to Wright's speech completely ignoring questions concerning the validity or invalidity of his statements? I have my own ideas. What is more important, however, is the recognition of the occurrence of this largely involuntary mental filtering process and the set of paradigmatic assumptions and prejudices that many within the media and society at large carry. We should worry when making statements of fact lead to being branded as a "radical." What does that say about our society when recognition of historical fact is seen as "radical," and thus by definition outside of the mainstream of thought? When speaking truth to power becomes a crime, those who tell the truth will be the criminals.
Here is an excellent video rebutting one of the Fox News Corporation's goons. Simply listening to the "interviewer" shows what kind of unethical "journalists" that corporate whore of a "news" manufacturing company employs in order to generate its messages.
Thursday, April 17, 2008
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
Apologies for the long interval between posts. I became busy precisely when I expected not to be, and posting had to be sidelined.
I should write shortly.
I should write shortly.
Monday, February 4, 2008
Kant, Christians, and nihilism
I've had a few discussions with Christians in my time at Baylor University, and Kant continues to crop up with a disturbing frequency, and with some unsettling hypothetical consequences. I am quite certain that if one asked some of my fellow students their opinion of Kant, they would respond, "Can't what?". However, Kant's idea of the categorical imperative remains influential, even if the adherents don't recognize it. The categorical imperative is thus:
"Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law."
Essentially, this translates into a dictum that you should never steal/lie/kill/parallel park, because doing so is universally wrong in and of itself, and that the particulars of a given situation are irrelevant to the rightness or wrongness of an act. While people may say that killing/lying, etc. is indeed bad and should be avoided, it is much rarer to find a person that, when given a number of scenarios where killing/lying, etc. might lead to a greater good, would still say absolutely that these acts must not occur.
One particular objection to this ethical notion is based in the Holocaust. The thought experiment goes like this:
"Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law."
Essentially, this translates into a dictum that you should never steal/lie/kill/parallel park, because doing so is universally wrong in and of itself, and that the particulars of a given situation are irrelevant to the rightness or wrongness of an act. While people may say that killing/lying, etc. is indeed bad and should be avoided, it is much rarer to find a person that, when given a number of scenarios where killing/lying, etc. might lead to a greater good, would still say absolutely that these acts must not occur.
One particular objection to this ethical notion is based in the Holocaust. The thought experiment goes like this:
You are living in Germany during Hitler's Holocaust. You are not a Jew, but many of your good friends and neighbors are. In fact, you are hiding your best friend, his/her wife/husband and their children in your attic. One day, some of the gestapo come to your door and ask you if you have been hiding Jews in your attic. Do you lie and say no, or do you admit to hiding them in your attic?
Another simpler scenario goes:
You and your family are desperately poor and starving to death. There is a successful bread merchant nearby, and it would be easy for your to steal a loaf unnoticed. Stealing this bread is the only way that you and your family could survive. Do you steal a loaf of bread to feed your starving spouse and children?
Kant's line of reasoning via the categorical imperative leads one to confess that there are Jews living in one's attic, because lying is categorically wrong, and off to the camps they would go. It would also lead one to conclude that stealing from a merchant who has bread is wrong, and thus your family should die if stealing is the only option available, because theft is categorically wrong. I would say it is a safe venture in assuming that most people would conclude that lying to the gestapo is the best response in the first scenario, and that theft would be permissible in the second scenario. This is precisely because the details of a given scenario are vitally important to determining how one should react to an ethical dilemma. Issuing vacuous and general proclamations of moral absolutes with no attention paid to the specificities of a situation divorces oneself from the real-world consequences that should take part of the formation of ethical judgments.
The Kantian mindset lends itself to certain religious (especially Christian) mentalities (as it did for Kant two and a half centuries ago) as a means of reconciling seemingly obvious Greater Evils that arise as a consequence of adhering to the categorical imperative. One of the most prominent is the mythological addition of a supernatural realm postmortem, wherein all of the evils of this world are rectified through the presence of an infinite amount of Good (whatever that would mean) in a place such as a "Heaven". While many of my godless comrades may shrug this off as a harmless, childish wish, choosing to let these folks mire in their own blissful ignorance, I am more immediately concerned about the consequences of this paradigm.
What is the consequence of the belief in a "Heaven" as a negator of all bad things that occur in the world? Furthermore, what happens when this belief in heaven is combined with an ethical code that justifies allowing great atrocities to occur in the name of personal moral 'purity'? What appears to me as a frightening consequence is, ironically, one of the same charges that is often leveled against atheists by Christians. This is nihilism, primarily. If all of the atrocities in our world mean nothing when weighed against the eternal goodness of a Heaven, if all of the suffering in this world can mean nothing in comparison to eternity, then what meaning does any event have in life? Sure, it is terrible that thousands die of starvation every day thanks to the resource maldistribution inherent to capitalism, but if you are a Christian of the mentality I describe above, where a Heaven exists that rights all corporeal wrongs in some time "after death" (again, whatever that means), what does it matter if the world goes up in flames around you, as long as you don't cuss once the flames get to you? Is it easy sleeping at night while trying to tuck those golden wings of personal angelic purity under the covers?
I fully recognize that most Christians act far more pragmatically than this. Many act quite usefully in attempting to right wrongs of this world, rather than simply meandering within the city limits of Konigsberg their whole lives, keeping the clocks in order and mentally leaping into abstraction as a means of avoiding the redressing of worldly grievances (Sorry... Kant jokes...). While this may be the case, how do you more reality-tempered Christians act for greater "justice" while still maintaining a belief in some eternal afterlife where, regardless of what goes on in the few years we live, as long as you play nice you get a big party at the end, the starving children get a pizza, and every redneck wins the lottery every time?
While the true Kantian Christians are fewer in number, the consequential pseudo-nihilism that follows from (and in combination with) their theological assumptions is unsettling. Here is one particularly absurd exchange with such an individual (the name has been changed to mask her shame):
Me: So, Fonya, you believe that a fertilized human egg is the moral equivalent of an adult human being?
Fonya: Yes.
Me: Alright, here is a thought experiment. You are in a room that has erupted in flames. On one side of the room is an unconscious adult. On the other side is a bucket full of fertilized human eggs. You only have time to grab one and run out of the room before the roof collapses and kills everyone. Which would you choose?
Fonya: Well, what temperature is it in the room? Maybe some of the eggs might survive if...
Me: That is irrelevant. This is a thought experiment that elucidates your moral compulsion.
Fonya: Well, then I would choose the bucket of fertilized human eggs.
Me: ... really?
Fonya: Yes.
Me: What if it was your own child, instead of a random adult?
Fonya: I would still grab the bucket.
Me: Wow... *muffled weeping heard*...
As you can see, when this Kantian ideal is applied to a contemporary political issue, such as abortion, some disturbing ethical conclusions are reached by our friend "Fonya". If killing is wrong, and an embryo is a person, and a bucket full of embryos is a lot of little people, then her own child is of less worth than the little, numerically greater womb-boogers. What was not put into this snippet of the conversation was her attempt to simply not choose at all, and let both options perish rather than make a choice about life or death, leaving her ethically paralyzed with the potential tarnish of responsibility thrust upon her own Kantian purity.
While it is hopefully safe to say that most people, religious or no, have enough sense to act and make ethical judgments with the potential consequences in mind, at least in some limited fashion, I still have my doubts. What bothers me about this mentality with applied to a Christian cosmology is the above-mentioned nihilism that should logically follow. Atheists can fend of nihilism by recognizing the limited amount of time they have before death, and thus can find value in the world by understanding the ephemeral nature of life itself. There is a level of urgency involved that can spur you on. With a Heaven, however, of what worth is this world in comparison? And with the devaluation of the physical world for the sake of a mythological place of perfection after life, what decision and attitudes might these individuals hold? It should disturb you upon recognizing that the individuals shaping the environmental, nuclear and imperialistic policies of the global hegemon place more value upon this mythological world than the consequences of their actions in this world (however confused, illogical, or "non-christian" some christians might argue their actions to be).
This is partially why Nietzsche ripped Kant a new asshole over a century ago. Yet, these beliefs at least fragmentarily continue to find their way into a significant portion of the populace's system of acceptable values... and whether or not these pseudo-Kantian Christians are willing to consider it, such things have consequences.
Another simpler scenario goes:
You and your family are desperately poor and starving to death. There is a successful bread merchant nearby, and it would be easy for your to steal a loaf unnoticed. Stealing this bread is the only way that you and your family could survive. Do you steal a loaf of bread to feed your starving spouse and children?
Kant's line of reasoning via the categorical imperative leads one to confess that there are Jews living in one's attic, because lying is categorically wrong, and off to the camps they would go. It would also lead one to conclude that stealing from a merchant who has bread is wrong, and thus your family should die if stealing is the only option available, because theft is categorically wrong. I would say it is a safe venture in assuming that most people would conclude that lying to the gestapo is the best response in the first scenario, and that theft would be permissible in the second scenario. This is precisely because the details of a given scenario are vitally important to determining how one should react to an ethical dilemma. Issuing vacuous and general proclamations of moral absolutes with no attention paid to the specificities of a situation divorces oneself from the real-world consequences that should take part of the formation of ethical judgments.
The Kantian mindset lends itself to certain religious (especially Christian) mentalities (as it did for Kant two and a half centuries ago) as a means of reconciling seemingly obvious Greater Evils that arise as a consequence of adhering to the categorical imperative. One of the most prominent is the mythological addition of a supernatural realm postmortem, wherein all of the evils of this world are rectified through the presence of an infinite amount of Good (whatever that would mean) in a place such as a "Heaven". While many of my godless comrades may shrug this off as a harmless, childish wish, choosing to let these folks mire in their own blissful ignorance, I am more immediately concerned about the consequences of this paradigm.
What is the consequence of the belief in a "Heaven" as a negator of all bad things that occur in the world? Furthermore, what happens when this belief in heaven is combined with an ethical code that justifies allowing great atrocities to occur in the name of personal moral 'purity'? What appears to me as a frightening consequence is, ironically, one of the same charges that is often leveled against atheists by Christians. This is nihilism, primarily. If all of the atrocities in our world mean nothing when weighed against the eternal goodness of a Heaven, if all of the suffering in this world can mean nothing in comparison to eternity, then what meaning does any event have in life? Sure, it is terrible that thousands die of starvation every day thanks to the resource maldistribution inherent to capitalism, but if you are a Christian of the mentality I describe above, where a Heaven exists that rights all corporeal wrongs in some time "after death" (again, whatever that means), what does it matter if the world goes up in flames around you, as long as you don't cuss once the flames get to you? Is it easy sleeping at night while trying to tuck those golden wings of personal angelic purity under the covers?
I fully recognize that most Christians act far more pragmatically than this. Many act quite usefully in attempting to right wrongs of this world, rather than simply meandering within the city limits of Konigsberg their whole lives, keeping the clocks in order and mentally leaping into abstraction as a means of avoiding the redressing of worldly grievances (Sorry... Kant jokes...). While this may be the case, how do you more reality-tempered Christians act for greater "justice" while still maintaining a belief in some eternal afterlife where, regardless of what goes on in the few years we live, as long as you play nice you get a big party at the end, the starving children get a pizza, and every redneck wins the lottery every time?
While the true Kantian Christians are fewer in number, the consequential pseudo-nihilism that follows from (and in combination with) their theological assumptions is unsettling. Here is one particularly absurd exchange with such an individual (the name has been changed to mask her shame):
Me: So, Fonya, you believe that a fertilized human egg is the moral equivalent of an adult human being?
Fonya: Yes.
Me: Alright, here is a thought experiment. You are in a room that has erupted in flames. On one side of the room is an unconscious adult. On the other side is a bucket full of fertilized human eggs. You only have time to grab one and run out of the room before the roof collapses and kills everyone. Which would you choose?
Fonya: Well, what temperature is it in the room? Maybe some of the eggs might survive if...
Me: That is irrelevant. This is a thought experiment that elucidates your moral compulsion.
Fonya: Well, then I would choose the bucket of fertilized human eggs.
Me: ... really?
Fonya: Yes.
Me: What if it was your own child, instead of a random adult?
Fonya: I would still grab the bucket.
Me: Wow... *muffled weeping heard*...
As you can see, when this Kantian ideal is applied to a contemporary political issue, such as abortion, some disturbing ethical conclusions are reached by our friend "Fonya". If killing is wrong, and an embryo is a person, and a bucket full of embryos is a lot of little people, then her own child is of less worth than the little, numerically greater womb-boogers. What was not put into this snippet of the conversation was her attempt to simply not choose at all, and let both options perish rather than make a choice about life or death, leaving her ethically paralyzed with the potential tarnish of responsibility thrust upon her own Kantian purity.
While it is hopefully safe to say that most people, religious or no, have enough sense to act and make ethical judgments with the potential consequences in mind, at least in some limited fashion, I still have my doubts. What bothers me about this mentality with applied to a Christian cosmology is the above-mentioned nihilism that should logically follow. Atheists can fend of nihilism by recognizing the limited amount of time they have before death, and thus can find value in the world by understanding the ephemeral nature of life itself. There is a level of urgency involved that can spur you on. With a Heaven, however, of what worth is this world in comparison? And with the devaluation of the physical world for the sake of a mythological place of perfection after life, what decision and attitudes might these individuals hold? It should disturb you upon recognizing that the individuals shaping the environmental, nuclear and imperialistic policies of the global hegemon place more value upon this mythological world than the consequences of their actions in this world (however confused, illogical, or "non-christian" some christians might argue their actions to be).
This is partially why Nietzsche ripped Kant a new asshole over a century ago. Yet, these beliefs at least fragmentarily continue to find their way into a significant portion of the populace's system of acceptable values... and whether or not these pseudo-Kantian Christians are willing to consider it, such things have consequences.
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
