What's Crackin!?

New Blog Site

2011-03-05T14:34:00.000-08:00

Hey everybody, I am switching up my blog site. As soon as the final tally for my latest poll closes (I am so ridiculous) I will be posting on a different blog.

You can find my new blog here.

Stats of the Week

2011-03-05T10:21:00.000-08:00

Okay, so it looks like UCLA has pulled ahead and now has 41% of the vote! Yeah!

As for browser statistics, here is the breakdown for this week: Explorer wins out again with 41% of the "hits".
Google's Chrome has 23%
Mozilla's Firefox hauled in 19% of the "hits"
and Apple's Safari browser was represented 12% of the time (I wonder if the EU and the US "regulation bureaus" are going to slap Macintosh with a lawsuit for "unfair business practices" the way they did to Microsoft for using Explorer).

Fun, huh!? I also came to the conclusion of where I got my penchant for self-delusion and the ability to blame others for my mistakes: the apple doesn't fall from the tree, and I'm a bit dismayed at all of the nasty notes I got from BOTH sides of my family regarding bigotry.

But you guys are absolutely right: I never, ever, ever learned any negative stereotypes about blacks, Hispanics, or homosexuals from you guys. Never. All the bigoted stuff I learned about minorities and especially homosexuals came from my teenage friends and from television.

Haha! I have so much homework its not even funny. But first, homeless shelter duties (I've been there over a year now!) and then Togos (I've been there over two!). One thing I've learned about women and how to tell if they are mentally stable or not is to judge them by their ability to hold down a job. If a woman is constantly losing a job or switching jobs or whatever, then there is a good probability that she is a bit crazy and/or self-absorbed.

Women who tend to be able to hold down a job and work through rough patches and tough times tend to be women with good hearts, intelligent minds, stable mood swings (these are unavoidable with women) and really, really nice asses.

Bumbling On Through Midtown

2011-03-03T16:23:00.001-08:00

So, I just found out today that De Anza grades on a different scale than Cabrillo does. Because it is on the quarter system, De Anza grades with "+'s" and "-'s" and weighs the GPA scale accordingly. I have not done any reading or studying at all during the semester, and as a result I have a 91% in the class. I thought this would be good enough for an "A" (because it is at Cabrillo, which is on the semester system), but then I wondered why my grade was stated as an "A-" rather than simply an "A".

In short, I have to get my ass in gear over the next month in order to get a proper "A" grade in the class. Its hard though, because I view the class as elementary and not worth my time AND it is located waaaay up in Cupertino, so I am always in a bad mood when I get there (y'all know how I get when I drive). Anyway, wish me luck!

Its kinda funny. My friend H.A. (the gay, Hispanic, fat, ex-con, recovering drug addict one) is one of my closest friends now. Now, I want to share something with you that i am not particularly proud of: I was raised to be extremely bigoted of homosexuals and highly disdainful of Hispanic peoples (unless, of course, they had converted to the LDS church). So, in addition to becoming a better man through a) volunteer work, b) coping with death in a fashion that is not self-destructive, c) the rigors of school, d) working honestly and respectfully, e) the motions of heartbreak and f) learning how to work in positive relationships with the opposite sex, I have also learned to be a much more tolerant and open human being. I think Jesus would be proud of me.

H.A. has a lot of gorgeous women friends, and he regularly tries to make "matches" for me. There is one that he may have gotten right, but only time will tell. As for me, he actually brought me along with him on a meetup with somebody he'd only had communications with through a friend.

I told him that I thought the guy was cool, and my friend - who is flamboyant to say the least - said that he thought he was too "femmy". I laughed. H.A. used to be a crack-ho in a rough Santa Cruz neighborhood about two blocks from my house. Now he has standards and a lifetime of choices to make for himself. I don't like the program. I don't like what my sponsor is making me do, but I like what I see in my friend H.A. I'll stick with it.

I have gotten accustomed to eating at restaurants in midtown, where the Pink House is located. I like the food and the service more. Its a bit more my style: a little rough around the edges but on the whole a fairly decent place to take a seat and plop.

The west side has, by far, the worst food selection in town. Remember, the west side is where all the spoiled brats from suburbia live and where the rich folks of Santa Cruz reside. Needless to say, most of the bigger chains are located on the west side, while the more local stuff is in midtown or over on the east side and into Live Oak. One great place on the west side, though, is Cafe Brazil. It has amazing burritos, and lots and lots of young, slutty college girls pass through there at all hours of the day.

The weather in Santa Cruz has revealed to me why I pay such a high rent every month. I live in the crown jewel of the American Republic.

I am still trying to figure out both love and death. With death I realize that everybody dies, and that somehow, someway, everybody lives on. Love is a different matter. I'm still trying to figure it out.

Argentina

2011-03-02T19:12:00.001-08:00

Notice how all of Argentina's neighboring states (as well as Argentina) are republics? How is it that they have not achieved the same success as the republics of Europe and the United States. I'll try to elaborate on this a little later on, but I want y'all to keep the issue of geographic size in mind when thinking about this conundrum.

Also, prior to World War 1, Argentina's economy was the fourth largest in the world. What happened? I'll try and explain that, too. I'm sure you are all ecstatic.

BBBS was fantastic today. We had some organic farmers come in and tell us about their farm and show us a video of a 25 lb. bobcat that they caught. The kids really enjoyed it (and so did I!). Anyway, I'm off to a meeting! Love

Oh! And did y'all notice that Argentina also has Antarctic claims? Polar fiiiiiiight!

Berkeley is Ahead!

2011-03-02T10:41:00.001-08:00

Okay folks, there is only three days left to vote. Berkeley is ahead with a whopping 41% of the vote. Lets get 'er done!

What I'm currently reading online:

The Way Out of Iraq by Ivan Eland

Free Baluchistan by Selig S. Harrison

The Tea Party and American Foreign Policy by Walter Russell Mead

The American Century by Henry R. Luce

Check 'em out if you'd like, so that you can actually keep up with me when I ignore your questions about my life and instead start arguing about politics.

Dead Trees

2011-03-01T19:07:00.000-08:00

When I first laid eyes on you
There was something inside of me
That told me the truth:

You were a very special person
Who was going to affect my life
In a beautiful way

I never dreamed
That life could ever be so full
Like the sun in the sky

I was so in love with you
And with the fact
That it was unconditional

I took a walk through town the other day
And I saw the old avocado tree
That I had planted for you

It was a mere stump
And its branches were cut up
By man-made steel and stacked

According to size
The dead leaves had all been blown away
By the cold winter storm

I was a dick
I am a dick (or a bitch)
I will always be a dick (or a bitch)

And so you left me
Strongly
But surely

And found another lover
Within the blink of an eye

Photos from Ghana!

2011-03-01T17:29:00.001-08:00

Okay, so I have most of my photos from Ghana uploaded now. I am still missing some from Homos Night, and I think that they are buried at the back of my mom's storage unit so I probably won't get to them for a long time (I'd have to crawl through two decades worth of holiday decorations that have been hoarded over the years).

Aside from my mom being more like Grandpa than she will ever admit, I really like the pictures that I have. I had deleted most of them after I got dumped and became severely depressed, but I felt like the time was right to put them all back up.

Love, and a teaser:

Wowza!

2011-02-28T22:34:00.001-08:00

Hey! Hey! Nine votes!

Which one of y'all put down Davis?! Haha! I did some archaeological work on their campus the summer before Ghana and I really liked what I saw. But there ain't no beaches!

Thats about all I got for y'all tonight (I'm sure you are all bummed out). I see Anna every now and again, but we pretend like we don't see each other. In a sense, we are strangers. I don't know who she is. I just hope that every once in a while she will stop for a second and think about Ghana.

I may be accused of throwing some low blows, and I do feel remorse about all of them. Weird how things end up.

I have learned a lot about myself over the past two years, and I think its safe to say that I am a decent person. The kids at BBBS adore me. The people at the homeless shelter can trust me. My family is ecstatic to have me in their lives. I am a damned good student and I have dreams and plans for the future.

I am living the dream. Thanks Anna. Again, for what its worth...

Also, here is a great tribute to Michael from my mother. I noticed how my picture was put above the praise he received about being able to take the mean taunts that "other people" threw his way his whole life. I regret few things in my life, but one of them is the way that I treated my brother and sisters (the other is the way I have treated Anna). I still don't know how to make it up to them. Being sober is not enough. In fact, thats terrible if you think about it. How can I be a better brother? A better son?

I dunno, but check this out...

The New Colossus

2011-02-27T21:38:00.000-08:00

The New Colossus

By Emma Lazarus, 1883

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

Stats of the Week (Updated)

2011-02-26T14:27:00.001-08:00

Internet Explorer, Microsoft's browser, took in 44% of all my blog 'hits' this week.
Google's Chrome, a rival to Explorer, hauled in 22% of all hits.
Mozilla's Firefox came in third place with 20% of all blog 'hits'.

I am taking an Honors Statistics course and I am actually enjoying it. It is not as tedious as my regular stats class, and we get to use tools that will help us be more able to use statistics in our future endeavors.

Back to the stats between the rival browsers, I am surprised that Explorer dominated so thoroughly. I HATE Explorer and much prefer Chrome over the other two. I know Mozilla has a few other web browsers, and I think I am going to try one out over the week or so.

Hold on! I have more. I decided to take the weekend off and have been enjoying every second of it. I haven't had a weekend off that didn't involve a funeral or other family function in over a year. I am finally able to enjoy the finer details of Santa Cruz weekend life, and I have absolutely loved wandering around downtown and people watching.

I ended up going to SubRosa, an anarchist bookshop and cafe, for some free vegan tamales and browsed the book selection there. The type of anarchists that dominate the scene there are of the left-wing variety, and I got a kick out of the price tags that they put on their products. I didn't say anything, though. Instead I went over to the downtown Border's and picked up a book on the Dutch Republic that I've been lusting after for quite a while. Since it is going out business, I got a hell of a deal.

I have recently been drawn to the republics of the Netherlands and Switzerland, as well as the pre-Bismarkian republic of the German states (two of Bismark's most successful tools for centralizing power were war and "social security" programs like providing "free" goodies for old people and subsidizing medical costs) because of the nature of their political institutions. A little-known fact is that these three examples of peaceful republics had an extraordinary influence on the Founding Fathers of this country, and I would argue that they influenced them at least as much (if not more so) as the United Kingdom of England and Scotland did.

I am still stuck on Step 1 of my program, but I know I'll eventually get through it. I'm not in a hurry. The whole process still sucks, by the way, but I am starting to open up and I even went out to Santa Cruz Diner (a local landmark known for slow service and extra greasy food) last night with a bunch of people from the program.

Still waiting - quite anxiously - to hear back from the Honors Symposium committee as well as the various UC's.

I have been talking with a bunch of friends lately, and everyone seems to be in agreement that Santa Cruz is one of those places that is great to live for about two years, but after that things just get depressing. There is too much partying and "keeping it real" and not enough young people wanting to get out and make a difference in the world.

I am looking forward to the challenges ahead and moving to a much bigger city. I am thankful for all of the people that have come into my life over the past two years. Santa Cruz has been a truly awesome experience: I lived with a high-maintenance girlfriend and a higher maintenance old man sub-leaser for the first five months of my time here. Their clashes were onerous.

So I spent that summer traveling across the country to participate in libertarian seminars that were absolutely fantastic. I followed up by coming back to Santa Cruz, living on the streets, breaking up with high-maintenance girlfriend, shacking up with an old crazy lady and then getting thrown out by the crazy old lady because I wouldn't wear the "outfit" she bought for me.

Another month on the streets, though by this time I had a car I could live out of. This month also happened to be the coldest month on record in Santa Cruz for at least a decade, and I eventually found a place to live in Live Oak - one of the more dangerous neighborhoods in Santa Cruz county.

The bros there were funny, but I couldn't take the beer pong tournaments and bro hos that dominated the house. I eventually found the Pink House and the kindest, most strangest bunch of people in the whole city. It was the epitome of what Santa Cruz represents to the rest of the country. I lived the typical Santa Cruzian lifestyle! So I now I sit here blogging, thinking of my family, my future girlfriend, my schoolwork, my job, and my friends and I smile.

Love y'all!

[Ok! Ok! There is a lot more to my last two years than this: I learned how to cope with a broken heart. I learned how to give when I didn't want to - Big Brothers Big Sisters and the family shelter have been so good to me. I started drinking again. I slutted around. I buried my grandfather and my uncle. I let my ex and her family down. I had to kick out a roommate. I did some drugs again (and not just weed either). I have learned that people change, and you have to accept that. I have realized that my family will always be there for me, even when nobody else will be. I have fallen in love with the ocean. I had to go back to Anonymous programs - without the coercion of the state. I had to learn how to accept help. I have had to learn how to get rejected by women. I have had to learn how deal with the disappointment of life. I have had to write letters to prison for an old friend. I have had to let old friends go. I had to do this all on my own, but also with the help of everybody important. I have become an adult. An adult in Santa Cruz...HA!]

Thank You! Thank You!

2011-02-23T10:04:00.000-08:00

Nobody seems to "vote" on my blogs if they are not about me and my life. I guess thats cool, but I really hope y'all read my thoughts and opinions on ideas and world events. Feedback (especially criticism - so that I can fight with you) would be even better.

Life is going, and I've been a lot worse. The house drama is still ensuing, as I have now witnessed the house split into two camps: the conservative one that wants to keep the Pink House weird and wild, and the progressive camp that wants to keep all the hippies out and "restructure" the house so that it resembles something "normal".

If you haven't guessed by now, the argument is being fought out by the women, and I have made my request for another male housemate explicit. C'mon Craigslist gods! Gimme something good!

Fun huh? This little debacle has also taken away precious time at the mansion, and it has left those of us who just want to live in a relatively peaceful house with a bad taste in our mouths.

School is going, and I have to go write a paper on the Communist Manifesto. I really want to drop out and just wander around for a while, though. I don't feel like doing much of anything at all. School is just terribly boring right now, and I want to do something fun like...

Patience is a virtue. Oh, and I just finished paying off my hospital debt and I just qualified for a credit card. I'm a late bloomer, but the adult life is starting to catch up with me. My new chapter is starting off rather well, I'd say.

Oh, and I just saw my brother's Facebook page. Today is his birthday and his whole wall is filled with 'Happy Birthdays'. I'm not one to judge a person on the amount of people who post on his/her Facebook wall, but I think its afe to say that my brother is one hell of a guy. Love you little guy!

One Down

2011-02-22T15:28:00.000-08:00

...one more test to go! Just got done with my polisci midterm up at De Anza. I felt pretty good about, although I didn't study a wink for it over the weekend.

Political Science is my bitch.

So are all the suckers who I lure into Facebook debates. My uncle was the most recent victim, although to be honest it was he who lured me. If you ain't a good fisherman, its not wise to go deep-sea fishing: Thats where all the big fish hang out.

Suckaaaaaaaaaa! I'll have the whole thing up as soon as it winds down. I just threw a major piece of rhetorical poo in his face though, so I'm sure I'll get something equally snarky in return. :)

My Favorite Presidents

2011-02-21T18:23:00.000-08:00

Conventional popularity hold that presidents like George Washington, Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt are our "best" presidents because they went out of their way to bring the nation out of a struggle and right-the-ship, so to speak.

But have you ever noticed that famous presidents are often connected with war and the destruction of individual liberties?

This should be disconcerting to anyone who reads my blog (all three of you), but this seems to be a point that is indisputable.

I can hypothesize this rather odd notion, and deduct that mobs (democracy) are often in favor of war in general, but there is no empirical evidence to support this train of thought.

By why aren't unknown presidents more lauded? I think a better way of going about how to rate presidents would be by their merits of keeping the peace and not interfering with the personal lives of their fellow citizens.

In this regard, then the best presidents would have to be the unknown ones. Men like Grover Cleveland and John Tyler.

I'd think that these are the men who are to be lauded for doing a great job while in pubic office, and not the warmongers. Because great crises are what makes the history books, and if presidents are able to make it through their jobs without a crisis, then they should be the ones who are celebrated, right? Am I crazy?

Ho hum.

Civil Unrest and the Market Economy

2011-02-21T11:53:00.001-08:00

So far dictators - backed by the U.S. government - have fallen in Egypt and Tunisia. There are riots and demonstrations in Morocco, Libya, Bahrain, Yemen, Iran, Iraq, and now it looks as if the bad global economy and its consequences are spreading to China.

What is remarkable about these protests is just how little the United States seems to be implicated in the problems associated with these societies' problems. Libya's dictator has been ardently anti-American for his entire career as a dictator, and Iran's regime has made a name for itself largely on the principle of being a counter-weight to American power its region.

A modern map of the Maghreb region

While it is true that the protests in Iraq, Bahrain, and Yemen have some anti-Americanism in them (and why wouldn't they?; the U.S. has deeply vested interests in these states), I think it can be safely argued that the current round of worldwide civil unrest has more do with the bad economy and less to do with battling the supremacy of an aspiring global hegemon.

An older map of the Maghreb. Notice how the states are largely the same as they are today? Perhaps this helps to explain why standards of living and stability are - although deplorable by Western standards - much higher than in sub-Saharan Africa.

If we hearken back about three years to the American presidential elections, we can hear a certain congressman from Texas warning about the crisis that is currently unfolding before our eyes: higher food prices, malinvestment, civil unrest, price inflation in energy, etc., etc.

Ron Paul warned us about this crisis, and we would all be better prepared for what is looming by studying the history of central banking and how these special interest groups - once they gain a state-granted monopoly - distort the economy and create the bubbles that contribute to the "busts" that have been so prevalent in American (and now global) society for the past 100 years.

On a side note, sub-Saharan Africa seems immune to the current crises affecting the rest of the world. I think that this helps to explain why this region has gotten poorer since the post-war period, while the rest of the world has gotten a little bit better off: the region is still isolated from the global economy.

Until Africa's leaders begin to really liberalize their economies and open their societies to world trade, they will continue to be mired in abject poverty and socialist utopia.

What is interesting about all of this is what has lain beneath these "socialist" economies. Remember, these Third World countries decided to try socialism rather than freedom when they won their independence, and so we can gauge a useful description of how socialism actually works in practice. I think we can see that socialism inevitably leads to nationalism, protectionism, isolationism, and abject poverty for most members of a society. It also leads to oligarchy.

The fact that so many national industries (i.e. nationalism) are run by cronies rather than technocrats suggests that socialism inevitably cannot set out to even accomplish its main goal: that of abolishing the marketplace and the supposed inequalities that it creates.

Lets hope these new revolutionaries realize this when they go about re-organizing their government.

Markets and the Internet

2011-02-19T13:48:00.000-08:00

I have noticed that there has been an increasing number of "hits" to my blog being directed by "Bing", which is Microsoft's response to Google. All in all, I view this competition as remarkably beneficial to the internet and its users, but I do fear the looming battle ahead - not online and in the form of marketplace competition (that would bestow upon humanity untold blessings) - but rather in the form of the lobbying efforts that will inevitably be ratcheted up by both companies in a bid to use the federal government as a way to impose regulations upon the internet and thereby squeeze out competition. That does not bode well for anybody, but unfortunately rent-seeking efforts like these will continue far into the future so long as the American people continue to view Washington as a public trough rather than a necessary evil.

The most popular map - by far! - is that of Switzerland's political boundaries. For such a geographically small nation, it sure does generate a lot of worldwide interest. My guess is that because it is so rich, and because it is so neutral, that the state has become sort of a beacon to the world on how to govern themselves democratically and freely. This is a position that the United States should strive to achieve, but conservatives and (especially) liberals seem to believe that the role of global hegemon is much more fitting for a "republic" than peace, prosperity, and freedom.

Neutrality does not necessarily mean avoiding war or giving in to the bellicose demands of a dictator. That is not what Switzerland is about. This a state that was, after all, surrounded by the Third Reich and still refused to give in or to comply with its dictator's demands.

Travel Wishes

2011-02-18T13:47:00.000-08:00

I don't normally like to post about my wishes, because I am one of those people who believes that people who wish are just too lazy to accomplish their goals. If you want something bad enough in life, you can get it. With that being said, I really want to check out Chile sometime! Here is a map: Notice how the Chilean state claims a big part of Antarctica? When I visit Chile, I am going to make sure that I take a tour of Chilean Antarctica!

Today, Chile is the wealthiest and freest state in Latin America, largely because it is the state with the least amount of government and the least amount of international trade restrictions. Although both Brazil and Argentina have larger GDP's due to their geographical size advantages, Chilean citizens - on average - enjoy a much more comfortable standard of living than either in Brazil or Argentina. In other words, the wealth disparities caused by government intervention (specifically protectionist measures undertaken by Buenos Aires and Brasilia at the behest of powerful domestic labor factions) are negligible in Chile; the Chileans have a much larger, much more dynamic middle class than their larger neighbors, and as a result, their democratic process is much more envied than that of Brazil's or Argentina's (although Brazil's recent attempts to liberalize their economy has led to pretty good democratic institutions, but not-so-good wealth disparity numbers).

The sole exception to the negligible wealth disparities in Chile comes at the horrifying expense of the Native American nations currently residing on reservations. Because of the wars of the past, the Native Americans have been under the occupation of the Chilean state and therefore under its care as well, to very detrimental effect. They should, as should we in the United States, abolish the Indian reservations and Indian bureaucracies and either grant the nations sovereignty or give them full citizenship.

But I really just want to go to Chile for the beautiful women and the Antarctic experience. And the lakes, the rivers, the Andes, etc., etc.

House Drama

2011-02-17T17:29:00.001-08:00

Hey all! Since the beginning of the new year there has been a lot of drama at the Pink House. Too many hippies, too many furry animals taking craps in my room, too many uninvited guests, too many invited guests, and too few people with steady jobs or other activities to purposely fill their time.

This has led to a lot of drama which, unfortunately, I was unable to avoid. I didn't mind all of the guests. They are all good people, but some of my housemates who actually help to pay the bills did object. The landlord didn't like it either.

After about six or seven months of trying to find someone who had the ability to "get things done", he zeroed in on the quiet one that was reluctant to share in the discussions that we had been having with him. That would be me.

To make a long story short, I have had to "get shit done", and the end result has been to kick out a member of the house. He wasn't following the simple instructions laid out by the landlord at the behest of other individuals in the house (not me, though; I'm pretty laissez-faire). He failed to keep his dog out of the house (this was my simple request too, after the dog took a shit in my room because the owner just left him in the house while he went out to party with his bandmates). He failed to keep his friends out of the house. His friends were overbearing to a majority of the renters in the house, and they - who all have jobs or go to school or both - were about to jump ship and leave me with the stinky hippies.

So the landlord threatened to give us all the boot, and I struck a deal with him. Here's the kicker though: I had to kick out my housemate. Ouch. I hope that my last five months here will be better than the last two! Love y'all!

[update: things are a little better, but I'll know my living situation is secure by the end of the week. That's when my landlord (who has taken time out of his life to back me up) told my housemate to get out by. The funny thing is, he and his friends can't seem to figure out why the landlord is kicking him out. And as I have been trying to talk still other housemates into staying, they have confided in me (but it ain't a secret now!) that my housemate's friends being over all the time, as well as the dog, was the main reason nobody felt comfortable living here any longer. I just hope that these guys go with no major complications. I'd hate to have to "get shit done" again, and I don't want to risk losing all of my housemates that work and/or go to school full-time because the hippies keep trying to stick around. Stay tuned!]

The Triangle of Self-Obsession

2011-02-15T22:15:00.000-08:00

I was just labeled 'mad' (in the genius sort of way, of course, but mad nonetheless) by Professor Delacroix this evening. I thought now would be a good time to talk a bit more about it.

I am a bit crazy, a anyone who knows me can attest. I'm also a bit weird, too. I finished up that book on autism a while back and I'd like to go more in depth with it a little later on this month.

The 12-step program tells me that anger, resentment and fear will give way to love, acceptance and faith. I have my doubts, but I don't want to go back to jail or to the prison that drugs and booze kept me in.

[Update: I won't hear back from the Stanford Honors Symposium until the end of March, so I will be waiting around to hear back from them, too *sigh*]

Anyway, off to the gym! Goodnight y'all! Love

Big Fish and Iraq

2011-02-15T18:15:00.000-08:00

More on the recent exchange I have been having with Dr. Delacroix. I like what I see so far, and it appears to me that I am beginning to get under the old French immigrant's skin. This is, of course, pure joy for someone like me. His words are indented and in italics. I re-started the argument as such:

Come out! Come out! Wherever you arrrre!

Dr. J: Although I believe that feigning ignorance is a good skill to learn (especially while traveling abroad), I am afraid I cannot use this wonderful tool in the context of this debate. For, I know now why you have not gloated about your hard-earned point on Iraq being a democracy, and I can see why you have avoided the bait that I had left for you. Big fish, as you know, are quite weary of being hunted.

Let us go back to my musings on democracy, and how I stated that I use the idea and the institutions behind democracy rather loosely, especially in the context of FREEDOM.

After all, the Soviet Union held elections with adult suffrage, and Singapore is world-famous for both upholding the rule of law and avoiding the topic of elections. Poland, Hungary, and Czechoslovakia held elections while being occupied by the Soviet Union’s military, and today’s post-colonial states all enacted bottom-up revolutions with the intent of implementing democratic reforms. All of these societies have (or had) democratic elements in them, yet how many of them are considered to be free? Singapore, perhaps? The one that bristles when the topic of democracy comes up?

This is where I bring up your sloppy boast to Martin that George W. Bush was the only president to “do something about democracy” in the Middle East. You are very adept at weaseling your way out of a corner (I’m sure that the fact that you used to be French has something to do with this), but you cannot escape the fact that GWB’s policies have not brought freedom to the Middle East, but rather death, violence, and destruction – democracy notwithstanding.

Lost in our earlier battles are my subtle (at least I thought so) critiques of democracy itself, and how the concept by no means insinuates that freedom will follow democratic reform. Lost also in my argument amid your proclamations if imperial success at implementing reform is the fact that your examples – France, Germany, Japan and Italy, the Southern confederation – all had ideas on how to integrate democracy into their own conceptions of what freedom means to their societies.

So, too, do the people of Iraq, and I do not believe that they are satisfied with the status quo (hence the car bombs, the ongoing ethnic and religious persecutions, and the presence of a foreign military) of their freedoms or their democracy. If they were, I am sure that there would be calls by Baghdad for the Pentagon to fork over a hefty rent fee, like Germany and Japan, and stay for awhile (and for Christ’s sake, these two states were defeated in a heavily industrialized war in which the dominance of vast swathes of the globe was at stake. Hardly Saddam Hussein’s Iraq).

Has all the death and destruction in Iraq (on both sides) been worth it for a democracy that is incompatible with the Iraqi conception of freedom? Wouldn’t it have simply been wiser to get rid of the economic sanctions and the foreign aid that was entrenching Hussein further and further into veins of Iraqi daily life? The answer is, as we both know, “yes”, but such policies would be impossible in the political climate of Washington today. And here Dr. J, is where I feel it is pertinent to highlight the crux of my argument: we don’t need to look to Baghdad, Damascus, or Tehran for enemies of republican government, individualism, free trade, the rule of law and internationalism – the most important concepts to borne out of Western civilization – because the most vile and cunning of these enemies make their beds in the central capital of this awe-inspiring republic. We would do well to focus on our own ideas of freedom, lest we wake up one morning and find ourselves shackled in chains and working for survival rather than success.

Remember Dr. J: The nation-states, empires, and confederations that we defeated in those horrific wars all those decades (and centuries) ago were beaten by a superior foe, but the superiority of that foe derived from the institutions and principles embedded in that society: republican government, free trade, individualism, the rule of law, and a healthy belief in world peace. These principles are sorely lacking in the United States today.

Oh yeah, I almost forgot one other aspect of LIBERAL democracy that I think is important for its continued survival: the acknowledgement that the right to bear arms and form militias is a fundamental right that cannot be taken away by government, and the legal institutions (or lack thereof) that make such an acknowledgement so. I don’t know if the American military has banned militias and guns in Iraq, so you’ll have to let me know. Holla back Dr. J!

Dr. Delacroix responded in kind:

Glad to be giving you a chance to review your understanding of democracy. A comment and a question.

Comment: France is not a democracy because it does not recognize any civilian right to bear arms. Even hunting guns can only be held through a system of collective responsibility.

Question: a serious question. Please, try to answer it before you send another interminable commentary: Was democracy imposed on Japan at the end of a gun after that country lost a war decisively? It's a yes or no.

Speaking of "weaseling."

Oooo! He's dirty! But I think that my response was even better:

Dr. J: I can't wait to hear what kind of paltry excuses you can come up with after this volley! Old habits die hard, I suppose...
"Was democracy imposed on Japan at the end of a gun after that country lost a war decisively? It's a yes or no."
No. Here is my explanation for such an absurd conclusion: The Japanese signed a peace agreement in 1945 after the Democrat Harry Truman dropped the atomic bomb on them. So it would appear to me that the use of force against Japan - a highly industrialized homogeneous nation-state - was not implemented in order to force Japan to adopt democracy. Rather, the ensuing constitution (ratified a few years after their surrender) that was adapted needs to be more properly considered in a light that views the Japanese as cooperating partners in the drafting of their new constitution.

After all, aside from a few communist demonstrations, there was no violence directed against American occupation forces. There were no car bombs. There was no sectarian or other religious violence aimed at Daoists, Buddhists, Christians, and/or other Shinto sects. The Ainu were officially (if not practically) recognized as citizens of Japan. The Japanese people had just spent four years engaged in a war effort against a people that they eventually lost to - a first for their society if I am not mistaken. Thus Japanese society had a history of working together for a common cause; they were used to cooperating for political purposes. When one state and/or culture attempts to impose itself upon another there is resistance. So I think that these facts imply that the Japanese were willing partners in the process of re-organizing their democracy, rather than recipients of a beat-down for democracy.

Remember, the war aims of the United States in regards to Japan had nothing to do with imposing democracy by force on that country. The sole aim of the war was to defeat a rival industrialized state that already had democratic institutions and, prior to the undertaking of imperial expansion, a decentralized political process that had stemmed from their feudal era and that had evolved into a constitutional monarchy - much like what happened in Western Europe throughout the 19th century.

Thus, democracy was not imposed by force.

I would also like to take a minute to address your sarcastic claim that "France is not a democracy because it does not recognize any civilian right to bear arms. Even hunting guns can only be held through a system of collective responsibility."

It would appear to me from this statement and your recent brouhaha with my fellow libertarians on one of Martin's posts that you view democracy as the end of all ends. If this is not the case, then please correct me.

To me, it seems as if democracy itself is to be viewed in relativistic terms (and in tandem with concepts like freedom), as we would both agree that France is democratic, but that their laws concerning guns, labor, religion and a whole assortment of other social issues are anathema to our view of democracy. Again, I point to the fact that China has universal suffrage, and that some Chinese citizens view their state as a democratic one. Mubarak regularly held elections, and the Muslim Brotherhood pulled in something like 20% of the parliamentary vote in the last one held. That sounds a lot like democracy, and some Egyptians no doubt feel like the current wave of democratization is not really going to be more democratic.

So, given that democracy is thrown about in such relativistic terms by all societies throughout the globe, I think it would be safe to say that undertaking a war (in the middle of the Islamic world, no less!) for such a vaguely defined and relativistic concept is not only stupid, but dangerous as well. I think the perfect case in point would be the Serbonian Bog that our military is currently mired in over in Mesopotamia.

The burden of proof is now on your shoulders, Dr. J. Show me a successful example where "democracy" has been imposed through war, and I will throw my support behind Washington's wars for such a concept. If you cannot do so, then I think a public denouncement of the war effort on your part is in order. I urge you to do the latter. As an aside, I would like to throw at you all of the recent security measures that have been undertaken by the American state over the past decade that have severely restricted our liberties, and ask you to consider these restrictions in tandem with the ongoing war effort by Washington in Asia.

Who has gained freedom by the invasion and occupation of Iraq? The car bombs, ethnic cleansing, and sectarian violence lead me to conclude that freedom has not been attained through military force. Democracy? Ok. But so what?

Have we gained freedom from the Bush administration’s endeavor to impose democracy throughout the Middle East?

Not bad, huh? This is the nasty reply I got in return:

The Us was the lead actor in a war against Iraq in 1991.That was under UN auspices, for what it's worth, and the US was heading a vast international coalition. The coalition won. The Us imposed an armistice on Iraq. (Armistice means: We will stop killing you if you do X, Y and Z.) The same Iraqi government violated the armistice about five hundred times. Ten years later, the US and some of is original allies resumed the war that was never stopped (still with UN sanctions, still for what it's worth). After defeating the warlike regime of Saddam Hussein, the UN and its allies decided not to rule Iraq as a US dependency or as a dependency of the UN. Instead, it decided to set up a secular republic. No country protested. And here we are; There is a secular republic in Iraq governed through elections that are fair, free and open (even former Saddamites are now allowed to run as if Nazis had been allowed to run in Germany in 1954!)

You can twist and turn all your want and find essential differences between Japan and Iraq that boil down to the color of the opposition leader's hat, but there is no significant constitutional difference between Iraq 2011 and Japan 1955. THat Japan was squashed more thoroughly than Iraq means nothing in connection with the description of what the US built in both countries.

Pres. Bush and his neo-con team achieved exactly what they set out to achieve. I deplore that the process was more messy and costly in every way that they hopes and that it took too long. (They deplore it too.) That was never our argument. You keep changing the subject because it's easier than changing your mind.

The Us imposed democracy on Japan at the end of a gun in 1945. It's still working pretty well. (Better than Chicago or New ORLEANS, THERE TOO.)

Finally, Dr. Delacroix is beginning to take my arguments seriously again. I posted the following response:

Dr. J: with all due respect, I fail to see how I changed the subject (again!). I answered your question about Japan to the best of my ability and received nothing in reply (more on this in a minute). I also took the liberty of responding to your comment on guns and democracy in France. I fail to see how my answers changed the subject. I did throw some questions at you at the end of my argument, but those were also on topic and were supposed to get you think more broadly about the consequences (intended or otherwise) of the failed policies of the Bush administration in Iraq.

In response to my argument about democracy being imposed by force in Japan I got the following from you: "The Us imposed democracy on Japan at the end of a gun in 1945." There were no facts and there was no argument against my own (on Japan) to be found anywhere. You simply brushed aside my argument as if it were a nuisance, and not worth the time to consider, to rebut, or even to bury it. You did the same to my counter-argument about France in 1945-6 being the same thing as Iraq today. You simply appealed to authority and rashly excused my comment as if it were meaningless, and - in doing so - continued to change the subject to fit your view that the Bush administration's invasion of Iraq was a glorified and far-thinking response to both promoting democracy worldwide and fighting global terror networks.

Again, one of us is guilty of changing the subject to fit his views, but, as the world-famous rapper Ice Cube said: "I ain't tha one!"

I am still waiting for some serious rebuttals against my arguments that democracy was not forced upon the people of Japan and France (and Germany and Italy and wherever else you may dig up to find excuses for the Bush administration's policies). Until then, I am going to take more liberties to address yet another example you have thrown my way (I can't help it! I love swimming with the big fish!): that of the invasion of Iraq. Personally, I am glad that we have finally been able to get around to debating the merits and the intricate history of Iraq, as this is what we have been attempting to debate throughout this onerous process (although I must give thanks to you for allowing me to take so many proverbial trips around the world lately to and brush up on my history).
"The Us was the lead actor in a war against Iraq in 1991.That was under UN auspices, for what it's worth, and the US was heading a vast international coalition. The coalition won. The Us imposed an armistice on Iraq. (Armistice means: We will stop killing you if you do X, Y and Z.) The same Iraqi government violated the armistice about five hundred times. Ten years later, the US and some of is original allies resumed the war that was never stopped (still with UN sanctions, still for what it's worth)."
Yes, all of this factually correct, and as such, I do not disagree with any of it. But I must strenuously point out that this historical brief only bolsters my argument that each of the states we have thus far touched on has a history and a culture that is unique to it. Do you agree that the situation in Iraq is very different from the one in Japan, or Germany, or the Southern confederation? Its a 'yes' or 'no' question Dr. J.
"After defeating the warlike regime of Saddam Hussein, the UN and its allies decided not to rule Iraq as a US dependency or as a dependency of the UN. Instead, it decided to set up a secular republic."
Yes, and this is exactly what the colonial powers of 19th century Europe did as well, for what its worth. The results of such social engineering had been catastrophic for the societies that were colonized, and I don't see anything that suggests that this pattern will change.

One other minor detail I'd like to point out is your assertion that Iraq was set up as a secular republic. Read Article 2(1st)(a) of the Iraqi constitution. Oh! I'll just make it easy for you, as I'm sure you don't want to be burdened by a student's requests for information right now: the article explicitly states that Islam is to be the official religion of Iraq. That FACT makes the idea of Iraq being a secular republic rather absurd, wouldn't you agree?

To be clear, the new constitution also highlights total protection for religious minorities, but as any decent libertarian knows, religious minorities in Iraq had it far better under the Hussein regime than under the new parliamentary democracy set up under the auspices of the West. In fact, some libertarians even argue that modernizing fascistic regimes are better at protecting freedoms than "democratic" ones (see here for an example). I digress.
"No country protested."
France and Germany, the fourth and fifth largest economies in the world (in 2009 as measured in GDP) officially objected to the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Beijing, Moscow, and Ankara all objected. These states all have significant amounts of global economic and strategic clout, too.

"And here we are; There is a secular republic in Iraq governed through elections that are fair, free and open (even former Saddamites are now allowed to run as if Nazis had been allowed to run in Germany in 1954!)"

Ok, aside from the FACT that Iraq is not a secular republic, this is true. Boycotts notwithstanding, the elections in Iraq are free, fair, and open.
"You can twist and turn all your want and find essential differences between Japan and Iraq that boil down to the color of the opposition leader's hat, but there is no significant constitutional difference between Iraq 2011 and Japan 1955. THat Japan was squashed more thoroughly than Iraq means nothing in connection with the description of what the US built in both countries."
Ah! Another excellent point raised by the good doctor, and one that inadvertently lends even more credence to my argument. Most constitutions in the world today are structured exactly the same way. Costa Rica, the US, France, Switzerland, Nigeria, India, Venezuela, Iraq, etc., all have similar constitutions. Yet I think that we would both agree that these societies all have drastically different economies, drastically different levels of democratic participation, and drastically different cultures.

Possessing a democratic constitution in no way secures the liberties of individuals in a given society. Laws and mores of a people have much more influence over the affairs of governance than do constitutions, no matter how well-crafted. This is probably why most post-colonial states, upon gaining their freedom from Europeans, descended rather quickly into dictatorship (this, along with the fact that two new post-war powers believed dictators made far better puppets than democracies).

To undertake, by way of central planning, a mission as pompous as creating a democratic-republic out of a dictatorship in the middle of the Muslim world does not guarantee anything but future uncertainty. No conservative or libertarian could possibly promote such policies and be ignorant of the consequences of them. Such dreams are traditionally in the realm of the socialists.

And my point about Japan was not that they were beaten more severely, but rather that the vast majority of society had taken up a cause at which they were beaten. So the realization that Japanese citizens had to cooperate with the victor (and, later, partner) was felt throughout the broad whole of Japanese society.
"Pres. Bush and his neo-con team achieved exactly what they set out to achieve. I deplore that the process was more messy and costly in every way that they hopes and that it took too long. (They deplore it too.) That was never our argument."
Yet this is precisely the argument of libertarians in regards to the whole invasion and occupation in the first place. The whole reason for opposing wars for democracy overseas is because of the unintended consequences that arise out of central planning. It has nothing to do with being a pacifist, or a pansy, and everything to do with the ill-effects that government planning has on societies, whether at home or abroad.

Nobody doubts (ok, at least I don't) the good intentions that the neoconservatives had in regards to Iraq and democracy in the Middle East. But who - WHO?! - is responsible for raising the point that the deprivations to society STEM FROM well-intentioned central planners more so than conservatives and libertarians? Does the invasion and occupation of Iraq deserve a special status in regards to central planning? I am curious to know.

With this being said, I think that now is a good time to put the idea of neoconservatism to the dagger (I am not yet big enough for a sword). Like all of the other fanciful, thoughtful, and wonderfully complex ideas that arise from the great stalk of classical liberalism, neoconservatism's time has come and gone. Its grand notions of a fully democratic world, of an end to history, and to the implementation of these ideas through the barrel of a gun if necessary have been masterfully put to the real-world test and they, like all other notions of a different path than classical liberalism's, have failed miserably.

Holla back Dr. J!

Dr Delacroix ended the debate with this:

Brandon: Stop presenting yourself as a put upon poor student. That's tiresome. You don't seem to want to stay put.

You keeping adding conditions to the definition of democracy. Islam is the official religion of Iraq. If I checked I would find that some sort of Christianity is "official" in Germany and elsewhere in northern Europe. It does not matter a fig as long as there is freedom of religious practice. Many of the conditions you seem to impose seem irrelevant such as the economic clout of France and Germany. You could not be satisfied pointing out that one of my clear statement s was factually incorrect ("No country objected.") Being right does not seem to be enough for you.

I did not grasp your comeback on Japan and the use of a gun to impose democracy. For me it's still an open and close case.

Again, this is not a court of law; "beyond a reasonable doubt" does not apply here. My impression is good enough. My impression is that there is nothing anyone could say that would ever make you admit that Pres. Bush deliberately initiated a process in Iraq that led to a functioning democracy. If it were forty years from now and Iraqi democracy were the envy of the Swiss you would still have objections, I think!
Moreover, I am not sure I am talking to anyone but you on this Facebook.

I am sorry but I have to beg off. You are a tenacious and smart person but I suspect you are also mad. Don't take this as a mean insult; many geniuses are mad.

Ps Technical comment: I suspect you place too much faith in the uniqueness of national cultures. It's a common American intellectual illness. It's rooted in part in parochialism, in part, on a strange kind of envy. There is little chance that you know much of anything about the topic of national cultures. The fact that you sometimes argue with me about France, of all countries, should give anyone, including you, pause.

I know this sounds petulant. It's not. I am always dying to say this. You were just standing in the right place!

Not quite the outcome I wanted, but I know now that he will be thinking about my arguments for the next little while.

Naked Thoughts

2011-02-15T15:39:00.001-08:00

If you striped away
All of my walls
And healed all of my scars
What would you find?

If you took away all of my clothes
And burned all of my books

I would be nude
I would be blank

In fact
The only thing of worth
Would be inside my heart
(My feelings)
And inside my head
(My conscience)

Oh the shame!
The embarrassment!
How could you do something
So mean
As to hurt my feelings?

Its not so easy
To say goodbye
As I thought it would be
You see
I thought I was better off
Without you

But my love for you ran deeper
Than I reasoned
And as we all know
Through experience
Reason has no place
In matters of love

I still don't know
How to say goodbye
My heart is still open
Not like a gate
But like a wound
Cut so deep

If you watch closely
You can see the blood
Spurt out
With the steady beat of my pulse

I stumble
And panic
As I grip the wound
With one hand
While the other
Frantically feels
For my center
That is no longer there

I'll always love you
For what you've done to me

Sponsorship and Self-Respect

2011-02-13T21:51:00.000-08:00

Hey y'all! So I got a sponsor last night, and I already hate what I have to do. I am not going to like this one bit, but I know that eventually this type of structure will be good for my sobriety. It helps that my relapse has been light and relatively harmless.

[Update: I forgot to mention that about an hour after I got my sponsor I had to drive back to the mansion (I forgot to ask my boss about internet connections, so I am going back and forth between the mansion and my mid-town commune). I happened to catch a glance of what appeared to be my ex-girlfriend crossing the street and yelling at the top of her lungs at some people with a 12 pack of expensive beer in her hands. It was around midnight. Anyway, I couldn't think of a more beautiful ending to this wonderful chapter of my life. A toast to the following: To my last six months in Santa Cruz, to my last five years of life, to my relapse, to my job and wonderful co-workers, and to finding yourself through good times and bad. Most people only dream of the life that I am living. :)]

Meetings have been cool. Despite what kind of stereotypes you may have about drug addicts, there are people there who have gone back to school, acquired degrees, and work in "the real world". Some of them are really cool women, too. Hmmm... :)

Y'all wish me luck with the sponsor thing - I'm going to need it! The best thing I can remember is to learn to love myself again.

Oh, and Ghanaians are so religious that its funny to me! I really miss Ghana. I miss Africa. I miss my family, but one thing I don't miss is Placerville. Odd. Have a lovely week y'all!

Love.

A Facebook note from a friend...

2011-02-11T23:53:00.000-08:00

"This is Frimpong Dennis Okomfo Anokye Senior School Wiamoase-Ghana.long time no see how is life. i want to tell you that seek ye first the kingdom of God and all other things shall be added unto you. if you don't have Jesus Christ confess your sins now,admit that your a sinner and take him as your personal Lord and savior.because in no time he will come and judge us according our works.be a vessel of honor."

A Moment of Clarity

2011-02-10T21:36:00.001-08:00

I figured out why I haven't had the best of luck over the past two and a half years, and it has nothing to do with luck.

I am very used to getting my way. In everything. If I cannot manipulate a situation into my favor, then I take a situation by the horns and wrestle it to the ground. Jobs, parties, drugs, girls, family, school, all of it. I have ALWAYS gotten my way. I have always gotten my way throughout my life, but the past two and half years have taught me that this had to end at some point.

Sometimes, in life, you lose. This doesn't mean that I am a loser, or that I am a piece of shit, it just means that sometimes you lose.

When my grandpa died, I lost - big time! When I was drinking and doing drugs (for the record, I've done 'em all and coke was my favorite and least favorite, too), I was a loser, but I never really lost.

All of a sudden I lost, and I didn't know how to cope with it. My friend H.A. gave a speech in the meeting tonight. He was talking about how he wasn't "using", but he wasn't "recovering" either. This hit home for me. I still haven't found a sponsor, but I figure God is scheming, and that everything will fall into place soon.

Love.

Cairo, Tunis, and Karl Marx

2011-02-10T17:00:00.000-08:00

No. There is nothing in common between the the first two and the latter, despite the best efforts of my Political Science professor to convince the children that it is so.

Indoctrination.

Living in my boss' mansion has been great! No kids. No noise. Just a hell of a view and some peace and quiet to myself.

My battle with Dr. Delacroix is hardly over yet, but it is definitely going to take some effort to convince him that the Iraq war was and is a terrible idea.

School is going to be a cinch this semester, and the hardest part about it will be not getting bored and itching to move on to bigger scenes.

Done Done and Done!

2011-02-09T15:10:00.001-08:00

I submitted my Honors proposal today. Y'all cross your fingers for me, huh?

Love

Here is a Dutch colonial map of Java: Notice how there are no boundaries or territorial lines drawn, just a bunch of mountains separating the Dutch-influenced coastal region from the interior? Maps are an extremely powerful tool used for influencing the minds of humanity. Well, that, and the fact that the scientific process during the 17th and 18th centuries was far less decentralized than it is today.

Nevertheless, If you take a look at the maps of the post-colonial world today...

Staying in Mansions: Santa Cruz Edition

2011-02-08T19:22:00.000-08:00

Staying in Mansions: Placerville Edition

2011-02-08T19:19:00.000-08:00

And the Big Fish That May Have Gotten Away

2011-02-08T14:06:00.000-08:00

Dr. Delacroix has swung back into action. I have learned something new today. He posts:

Hi, Brandon. Here is a complement to my previous curt and irritated response to your long essay dedicated to “Why Dr D is obviously wrong on Iraq.”.

You seem to believe you are in a court of law where you can place on me the burden of refuting each and everyone of your allegations, even to the most patently absurd ones, beyond a reasonable doubt. That's not how I do anything in Facebook because I wish to marshal my time usefully. Instead, I use the “barrel of apples”doctrine: If there is one rotten apple in the barrel, the rest of the barrel is deemed rotten. Here are a couple of rotten apples in the barrel that is your most recent long argumentation. (If I am showing fatigue and irritation, it's because I feel I have been there before, several times.) I don't choose the most rotten apples in your barrel, just two that I am interested in.

You seem to make the argument that Iraq's past of horrors and tyranny exclude or makes very unlikely the emergence of democracy in that country. Before 1989, Poland had experienced democracy of sorts for about 18 years (between independence and the Nazi invasion).That's about as long as Iraq did (in the twenties or thirties). Therefore, there is no real democracy in Poland.

You criticize substantially my argument that Iraq is occupied by American armed forces the way France was in 1945. OK, I will defer to your superior knowledge of French history. Let me change my example because there are others; I am not short of such examples. Iraq has on its soil a large number of American military, the way Japan did in 1946 and 1947, 1948, 1949 and, 2011. Japan fought and lost a war with the US, like Iraq. Therefore, Japan was not really not really a democracy in 1950 (?) and it is not one now either.

Common decency forces me to pass over the fact that there is a set date for the departure of American military forces in Iraq and that it's not in dispute. (I regret the first fact of course.)

The next step, I suppose (I am using my imagination) is that you will say, “ Yes but Poland...Yes but Japan....” If you have a definition of democracy, if there are conditions that must be satisfied before you call a country democratic, it's time you came out with the one and the other, instead of imposing on me the onerous and futile exercise of discovery what you really mean.

Finally, since you take the liberty to read my mind, let me read yours. The reading of your mind will also explain in part my growing reluctance to engage you. I suspect strongly that if I tore up the patchwork quilt you keep stitching to cover your nakedness, I would find the following:

You are at heart a pacifist. I think you might reluctantly agree that it's time to arm ourselves with bb guns in Santa Cruz if you were certain the Huns were in Watsonville, raping the horses and overloading the local women with heavy burdens.

PS Libertarians are the most doctrinaire people I have known since I stopped hanging out with Trotskysts, in the early 70s.

This is a good counterattack, and I responded with some venom of my own:

Dr. J: Thanks again for taking the time to response to my incessant prodding and provocations. You can stop responding to my argument anytime you'd like, but I want you to know that I am gaining a lot of knowledge and insight through this debate (whether I agree with your arguments or not). On to the debate at hand!
"You seem to make the argument that Iraq's past of horrors and tyranny exclude or makes very unlikely the emergence of democracy in that country"
Not quite. I wholly think that liberal democracy is possible in Iraq, and that the sooner they adopt and internalize the tools needed to wield such a force, the better. My argument is, rather, that liberal democracy cannot be imposed from above and at the barrel of a gun. In regards to your example of Poland, we must remember that it was the Polish people who took the initiative to overthrow the communist dictatorship there and establish institutions that would provide provide space for liberal democracy to grow and bear fruit, not a major outside state. In Iraq, there is no such correlation. This is why I have thrown my support behind the revolutions going on in Tunisia and Egypt: the people of these states are the ones doing the heavy lifting, and therefore they have a better incentive to take care to ensure that their liberties are protected and that there will be (hopefully) ample space for liberal democracy to grow and bear fruit. Again, I think that democracy in Iraq is very possible, and I hope that they one day have it, but this will only happen if the people themselves are the ones putting in the work to accomplish this feat, not American military might and bureaucratic know-how.

To use another example on this point, I would like to take us to a different spot in the world and in a different time period: that of colonial Senegal in the late 19th century. The French state put a lot of time, effort, and thought into creating a society there that would be able to properly use the benefits of liberal democracy (in time, of course). This did not happen, despite the best efforts of France's brightest intellectuals. The reason that liberal democracy failed in Senegal is not because the French overlords were stupid, or because the Senegalese were stupid; the reason liberal democracy failed in Senegal is because the people of Senegal did not have (by way of being a colonial state) the ability to implement their own institutions that would reflect their prejudices and practices much more ably than the outside French observers could ever hope to be able to do.

Japan has an equally unique story that is not pertinent to the situation in Iraq. Prior to its military defeat in 1945, Japan was a sovereign state. It had not been created by imperialists. The culture and the history of Japan was essentially homogeneous at the time, and their institutions were intricately interwoven (over centuries) into their social patterns in a way that Iraqi society has never been. In addition, Japan was highly industrialized, and was accustomed to the rigors of governing through a central capital and at the regional and local levels on a nation-wide scale. Their king was revered as a god, not as petty tyrant once propped up by foreign imperialists.

These are burdensome and painfully detailed responses to your counter-points, but they are necessary for understanding the larger picture of how and why liberal democracy comes about, no?
" If you have a definition of democracy, if there are conditions that must be satisfied before you call a country democratic, it's time you came out with the one and the other, instead of imposing on me the onerous and futile exercise of discovery what you really mean."
Ah yes! The meat and potatoes of this long and satisfying debate (to me, anyway). I have a relatively loose definition of what democracy means. The first element that must be prevalent is the rule of law with a clear regard for the protection of private property. Your point about Iraq possessing this key feature of democracy is well-taken, but I do not think that it is strong enough to survive without the presence of American troops in the state. On the issue of private property, for example, the various factions within Iraqi society have a wide variety of methods for enforcing this natural and mutually-understood concept, but these mechanisms for protecting private property are often in the hands of tribal and ethnic authorities and not in the hands of the Iraqi state. This is due, of course, to Saddam Hussein's adherence to socialist doctrines and was encouraged by American military, clandestine, and economic support.

The second element is adult suffrage. Iraq does indeed have this as well. So, too, does China.

The third element is that of the scope that democratic elements can influence in regards to the political, economic, and cultural affairs of individuals within society. This is very tricky, because you have to take care to avoid giving democratic institutions too much power or giving them too little liberty. In the United States we have a federal republic that draws a clear distinction of what each separate branch of the political institutions can do in regards to governance. The Iraqi people do not have this - in practical terms. The Bush administration implemented a parliamentary democracy in Iraq rather than a federal republic, and I think that Iraq, given its history, is far too big and its society far too complex to be able to handle the pressures associated with parliamentary governance. I think that the end result of Bush's failed experiment in Iraq will be despotism in the name of staving off anarchy (provided our troops leave, of course).

In order to understand this concept a bit better, I think it would be wise to remember that the founders of this republic viewed the constitution as an international pact rather than an implementation of a single nation-state. In Iraq, the American intellectuals attempting to mold a democracy out of it have placed too much emphasis on the concept of democracy and the nation-state, and not enough emphasis on the concept of sovereignty - at the individual, local, and regional level. Before you bring up the issue of Kurdistan, I think it would be poignant to remember that the political representatives of the Kurdish region are hardly excited about having to align themselves with other political factions in the Iraqi parliament. Only the jerk of Washington's leash is keeping them in line...for now.

Speaking of sovereignty, I think that now would be a good time to bring up the fourth element needed for democracy to flourish. I have already touched on this subject, so I will spare you any further distress. Just remember how you would feel about democracy in America if Chinese bureaucrats (or worse, French!) were overseeing the elections in this country. How well do you think that the Republican Party would do?

The fifth, and last, element of democracy that I believe is necessary also has to do with sovereignty. A democracy must be implemented by the people of a said state in order for it to truly be a democratic society. Now, just because a democratic revolution ensues does not mean that the democracy implemented will succeed, but there needs to be ample space for societies to try, to fail, and to experiment with different modes of governance and see which one works best for them. This has not been allowed to occur in much of the post-colonial world due to the incessant meddling of great powers during the post-war period. This also true of Iraq today - that is, its true if you listen to the words of the Iraqi people, of course.

In regards to your allegations that I am a pacifist, you would be wrong. I own three beautiful guns. They all have loud bangs [Hi Mom! - BC]. I am just a poor white boy raised by a single mother and I hail from a small mountain town in eastern California. As such, I naturally detest paternalism and believe that every man and woman should be treated with a common courtesy and respect that I would want to have for myself.

There is a time and a place for wars, Dr. J, but throwing soldiers and ill-advised institutional structures at a problem that our government helped to create in the middle of the Muslim world hardly qualifies for such a drastic measure as war. Wars that are not fought out of respect for one's enemies are wars that should not be fought at all. In addition, attempting to play mommy and daddy in regards to other people's societies have consequences that are often unforeseen and unaccounted for. War has all of the key ingredients that make a socialist's salivary glands salivate: imperialism, paternalism, isolationism, and authoritarianism. Those are four nasty, left-wing -isms that I would be loathe to associate with.

If we are to tackle the problem of terrorism in this world, I think it would be wise to adopt policies that would give our clandestine and military a much leaner, much meaner, and much cleaner approach to killing terrorists. The political mess and horrific bloodshed in Iraq hardly qualifies as such.

Again, I urge you to reconsider your support for the ongoing occupation of Iraq and the circus sideshow that is being called democracy in Iraq.

Not bad, eh? I certainly thought so, but Dr. Delacroix thought otherwise:

Bradon: Same kind of argumentation More rotten apples. I wish I knew the Latin name for what you are doing. Thank you for finally giving your definition of democracy. Iraq has it notwithstanding your imagining of that society's handling of private property. You might just as well say that France was not a democracy in the 50s because a very large % of property there was held by the state.

I don't know where you get your info about Senegal. It's a functioning democracy. Again, more so than say, Chicago or New Orleans (again!).

And, of course, you keep denying the obvious about imposing democracy by force. AGAIN: Italy, Germany, Japan, and, to an extent , the Soutern COnfederacy. That's among others.

I am gratified you are learning but I am beginning to think you are using superior youthful vigor to try to wear me down. One of these days. I am going to write something form my blog: Libertarian Dogmati. I will give you prominent credit! Ps YOur skepticism about the durability of democracy in Iraq is duly noted but it's pure speculation. When this discussion began, I was drawing attention to the current situation; I was not speculating.

This is a great argument, as it forced me into a corner which I could not get of. He punished me for it:

Dude (yes, I am busting out the traditional Santa Cruz lingo), I've listed an exhaustive amount of items that are required for a functioning democracy, and Iraq hardly passes the test. Check it out:
"Thank you for finally giving your definition of democracy. Iraq has it notwithstanding your imagining of that society's handling of private property. You might just as well say that France was not a democracy in the 50s because a very large % of property there was held by the state."
Until the Iraqi state holds elections that are not protected by the American military, and until the Iraqi state holds elections that are not overseen by foreigners, it can be safely assumed that Iraq is not a real democracy. That time has not come yet, so we must consider Iraq to be something more of a bloody, malfunctioning colonial state then an independent, liberal democracy. Why do you not mention these pertinent points in your rebuttals?
"I don't know where you get your info about Senegal. It's a functioning democracy. Again, more so than say, Chicago or New Orleans (again!)."
If Senegal is more of a functioning democracy than New Orleans or Chicago then I am the true heir to throne of France.
"And, of course, you keep denying the obvious about imposing democracy by force. AGAIN: Italy, Germany, Japan, and, to an extent , the Soutern COnfederacy. That's among others"
Nonsense. All four of these examples had democratic institutions leading up their respective wars. The leaders of these states (and confederations) were VOTED into office and came to power through the parliamentary process. Am I missing something? The fact that these authoritarian states used the excuse of the 'will of the people' to implement totalitarian measures does not negate the fact that these leaders were past of an active democratic process and that these states had democratic institutions in place at the time of their defeats.

I am bloodied and bruised, and I finally wave the white flag an hour later, after pondering his argument for far too long:

Ohhhhh...I get it. *bing*

You see Dr. J., it is moments like these that makes me appreciate your concern for my understanding of the world.

You have made me turn my own argument into something with more holes in it than swiss cheese. I am not so smart as I thought I was! Oh the embarrassment! The scandal! What am I to tell my girlfriends?

I argued that until Iraq has no foreign troops in her region that she will not be a sovereign democracy. Then I failed to get your point about the presence of American troops in Japan and Germany that are there today. Oh! I am ashamed! How could this be?!

Alright. I am humbled. And the lesson has soaked in. Iraq is a democracy, albeit an imperfect one (aren't we all).

But - BUT - this is only in a very superficial sense. For a liberal democracy to be imbibed by a people, it has to come from the bottom up. This category is sorely lacking in Iraq, and I fear that the repercussions of the Bush administration's decision to invade Iraq and institute liberal reforms will affect the world in a negative way for a long time to come.

Ouch. Getting a lesson from an old pro can sometimes bruise my ego, but I feel I learned a lot about my strengths and weaknesses. He has not convinced me that democracy in Iraq is a good thing, either. Hopefully this debate will continue far into the future, as I set a little trap for him at the end there...

On Iraq and Foreign Aid (Or, How To Catch and Cook A Big Fish)

2011-02-07T17:19:00.000-08:00

I posted the following link to my Facebook in which Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) proposes to end all foreign aid from Washington (he does not advocate ending all aid per se, either, just aid from the federal government to foreign ones) and buttresses his policy proposal with the fact that most, if not all, all aid ends up going to prop up brutal dictatorships in the name of stability.

I received the following response from Dr. Delacroix (note: his words will be indented and in italics):

The amount of foreign aid the US pays out is much exaggerated in the minds of contemporary Americans. It's another imperial illusion.

And, not wanting to really get into another debate so soon with the good doctor, I replied this way:

Maybe to contemporary Americans, but to the people living under these dictatorships the money received from Washington is very, very real...

Not to be outdone, a fellow libertarian in Santa Cruz jumped into the fray, arguing:

Jacques: 60 billion over 30 years is not an illusion. Most or all of it was spent back in the U.S. to buy the tanks and F16's, etc. Meanwhile the Musilum Brotherhood spent far less money building community centers and such. Our money supports a dictator while the other side builds goodwill among people. When the current revolution is over it should be obvious even to you that the U.S. money was not well-spent.

Naturally, I "liked" this, and was content with sitting back and watching the debate unfold at hand. Dr. Delacroix responded this way:

60 billion over 30 years is something like $15 dollar per American, per year. As I said, it's not much.
My point is that there seems to be big illusions floating around about any US government getting its was by threatening to cancel aid. It might work with Burkina Fasso, almost certainly not with Egypt.

Yes, our pittance is used to support dictatorships in various parts of the world. It's deplorable; it's immoral and its contrary to our history. It's obvious to me that the only American statesman to do any for democracy in the Arab World was George W. Bush.

This was quite a statement to be made, especially by a libertarian, but I was still content to kick back and watch the ensuing debate. My libertarian acquaintance responded in kind:

I'll leave the GWB comment for later. But meanwhile we a negotiating for Mubarak to leave. Somehow I believe we'll have to write another check to get rid of the guy we supported for 30 years.

True enough, but Dr. Delacroix was not content with the initial outcome of the debate. He replied in this way:

‎60 billions boils down to about $15 per American, per year. As I said, it's not much. Brandon: I don't know what you mean.
statment could have several meanings

Not one to refuse such an invitation, I responded in kind:

It means that the AMOUNT may not seem like much over a 60 year period to the casual American, but to the people being brutally suppressed by these dictators the money that their governments receive from American taxpayers in the form of aid is not an exaggeration and is not an illusion.

To these people the billions of dollars represent an ugly reality, not an "imperial illusion".

And that is just the money aspect of the aid argument. We also have to think about time. 60 years of dictatorship sponsored by the American taxpayer is not an illusion - to either the Egyptian people or (after 9/11) the American people.

And the last time I checked (which was about 4 minutes ago) the people of Tunisia and Egypt were not pointing to Iraq as a shining exemplar of liberal democracy and as a model to be followed moving forward with their revolutions.

The Egyptians are pointing to the bad economy, the bureaucratic corruption, and the lack of sovereignty the the American-funded dictator has wrought upon his people.

Don't stop reading just yet! Here is where the debate gets interesting. Dr. J responded (and I do like it when people of his stature respond, for that means they think well enough of my arguments to merit a response):

Brandon:You are talking to me as if I were in favor of dictatorship. Of course, I am not and I agree with most of what you say. The argument that Tunisian and Egyptian freedom lovers are not pointing at Iraq is misinformed or disingenuous.

First, wherever they point or not says anything about the reality in Iraq.

Second, it should be obvious that millions of well-educated Arabs are deeply ashamed of the cowardice they demonstrated in letting the worst tyrants prosper for many years and in leaving to Americans the care of getting rid of the worst of them, Saddam Hussein. It would take a large amount of intellectual humility for any large numbers of them to say," Look at Iraq. Thank you. Mr Bush." The fact is that ordinary Iraqi have most what Tunisians and Egyptians want. It's a fact. If you deny facts, your credibility will suffer.

Ouch! Now here Dr. J has raised the sails, and now its my turn to grab the wheel and be the captain of the ship:

‎"The argument that Tunisian and Egyptian freedom lovers are not pointing at Iraq is misinformed or disingenuous. First, wherever they point or not says anything about the reality in Iraq."
Okay, first you state that I am misinformed and/or disingenuous for arguing that the revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt have nothing to do with Iraq, and then you go on to hail the occupation in Mesopotamia as if it was the best thing to happen to Arab world since Madonna's first worldwide tour.

Yet the revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt have NOTHING to do with Iraq. If this is the case (perhaps I am wrong), then the debate at hand requires that you come clean about your attempts to justify the illegal invasion of Iraq by falsely linking it with the wholly separate revolutions going on in Egypt and Tunisia, and instead try and bring your argument back around to your point about...

At this point your reasoning leaves me confused, so let's see if we can see if your next statement helps to clarify your position. Ah! Here we go:
"Second, it should be obvious that millions of well-educated Arabs are deeply ashamed of the cowardice they demonstrated in letting the worst tyrants prosper for many years and in leaving to Americans the care of getting rid of the worst of them, Saddam Hussein. It would take a large amount of intellectual humility for any large numbers of them to say, 'Look at Iraq. Thank you. Mr Bush.'"
Haha! Well, let me be the first to congratulate you on your new appointment as spokesman for the Arab bourgeoisie. That's quite an accomplishment in itself (yes, I am smirking).

As to the charge that the Arab world "let the worst tyrants prosper", I think that we need to go back to the original argument at hand, and remember that Washington's aid plays a very large role in propping up dictators (so do her military and clandestine operations). Do you, as spokesman for the Arab bourgeoisie, really believe that the Arab people simply "let" tyrants do as they please without attempting to resist such authoritarian measures? I think now that the specter of 9/11 is a subject that needs to be broached.
"The fact is that ordinary Iraqi have most what Tunisians and Egyptians want. It's a fact. If you deny facts, your credibility will suffer."
I'm not convinced. Perhaps your next reply to my rebuttal will change my mind. I await. Oh, and I'm serious about cleaning your windows for $150 or so...[the reference here was to a musing that Dr. Delacroix had posted on his blog, and I was looking for an easy way to make some money - BC]

I'll be honest with you, this is a damned good response, and one that I believe made Dr. J a little bit seasick, as his next argument is apt to show:

First things first: I never offered anyone $150 to clean my windows. You are welcome to come to my house and to give me a bid. (It's a two-story house.)

I know this sounds detestable but I don't want to spend the time necessary to correct your prejudices for your benefit alone. I would rather do it as a by-product of my blog.

You have a way of arguing that you may not be aware of and that I just turned against you in the matter of Ron Paul possibly having palled around with anti-Semites [he had posted an inquiry on my inclusion of Ron Paul on my list of influential people - BC]: You admit nothing, you suspend belief on nothing, you don't lift a finger to see if the other guy might have a point, you change the subject. You could instead inform yourself on an elementary level.

ON Iraq today: You might fis out for yourself what kind of government Iraq actually has today Then, you can compare what you find with your idea of democracy. There is a risk that you might have to say: JD was more right than I thought. That could happen irrespective of the legality of the US second invasion of Iraq. That is changing the subject to avoid difficult questions. In my experience, liberals do this all the time. That's how they keep their positions pristine and immune to contradictions.

I was a little dismayed at this response, and I hope I responded in a way that was both tactful and steadfast. I responded with this feat of seafaring know-how:

Ah! And me without a ladder...

With all due respect Dr. J, let's go over the topic of changing the subject of a debate, so that all parties may be clear as to who has changed the subject. We are now at a point in this thread where you are attacking me personally for my argumentative style, you have brought - quite bizarrely - Ron Paul's possible anti-Semitism connections (?!?) into the picture, and you are claiming that Iraq is indeed a democracy. If that is not enough, you have linked my argumentative style with the ideology of lift-wing liberalism! Say it ain't so!

None of this has anything to do with foreign aid. Absolutely none of it.

Now that we have the topic of 'changing the subject' covered, let us move on to the idea that Iraq is a democracy in any sense of the word. The state of Iraq is not a democratic one. Authoritarian states have elections all the time. The Soviet Union held elections. Nazi Germany held elections. So, too, did some colonial states in Africa and Asia. Just because there is an appearance of a democratic process does not mean that is so. Iraq is currently being occupied by a foreign power. It is being used as a buffer zone by the regional powers of Saudi Arabia and Iran. It has a sizable minority of Kurds whose allegiance to the state of Iraq is questionable. Car bombs are frequent. Indiscriminate murders are frequent. Discriminate ones against religious and ethnic minorities still abound. Yet somehow all of these various factions (and many, many more) come together on election day, hold hands, vote, and then accept the outcomes of these votes because of their belief that a democratic Iraq is the best way forward for their interests.

Iraq is not a democracy. At least not yet, and if I were a betting man, I wouldn't place much on the prospects of the state blossoming into a bastion of democracy in the Middle East anytime soon. Liberal democracy cannot be imposed from above (and at the barrel of a gun to boot!), it has come from the ground up.

On the subject of Ron Paul, I do not want to get into a debate where I serve to defend a politician. Politics often makes for odd bedfellows, and anyone who attempts to defend a politician rather than ideas or events tends to end up making an ass of himself (here I'd point to the people who defend George W. Bush or Barack Obama at all costs). With that being said, I admire Ron Paul's consistency while in office, and his reputation as a congressman for not being able to be bought off. The charge that he is palled around with anti-Semites is probably true (he is a congressman from Texas, after all), but that hardly means the man is himself anti-Semitic.

One of us is adept in changing the subject to fit his views, but it sure ain't me Dr. J.

Is it possible that I have just caught the biggest fish of my life? Am I dreaming, or is this a reality? We shall see, and if I did indeed catch such a magnificent prize, I am going to cook it to perfection! Dr. J responded to my counter-point with this:

Brandon: I asked you the question about Ron Paul because of what you posted on the man. I was hoping to induce you to do the relevant research for me. This has zero connection with anything regarding foreign aid and no connection with the topic of whether Iraq is a democracy. Sorry if I confused you. It was not intended. I was not changing the subject. I used an opportunity you provided to try to answer an important question I am too lazy to answer myself.

You do argue like a liberal (also like an ex-wife).

Iraq has had multiple elections certified by international observers. Many of those obsrvers were almost as fervently anti-Bush as you are.

More eligible voters participated than in any recent US elections

The winning parties painstakingly created a coalition government as the Italians, or the British, or the Israelis would do if they faced such close election results.

There is a lot wrong with coalition governments but they do provide maximum representation for all or for most.

Iraq has a free and combative press.

The government respects the rule of law better than 90% of governments in the world.
Alternance in power is possible there: The current Prime Minister just announced that he would not run again.

That's all I mean by "democracy." So, by those standards, Iraq is not Switzerland but it's more of a democracy than say, Chicago or New Orleans.

Iraq is no more occupied by a foreign army than France was in 1946. The Maliki government said to the US, "You have to withdraw your forces on..." and the US said, " Yes." This is verging on the ridiculous.

Those are the facts. They are true irrespective of what Machiavelian foreign powers hope to use Iraq for in one, two, or one hundred years.

Ah! Here at last is the subject of democracy in Iraq, and whether or not George W. Bush deserves credit for bringing democracy into the Middle East. I begin to fillet my catch with this:

Haha! This reminds me of the arguments I used to have with my grandfather. When crusty old men (especially ones originally from France!) have made up their minds, there is no going back! [Ooo! I am so superficial! - BC]

You must forgive me for thinking you had changed the subject. It is apparent to me now that your question regarding Ron Paul's alleged connections with anti-Semites was extremely pertinent to the discussion on foreign aid.

50,000 American troops are still in Iraq. That is definitely not France in 1946.

We'll see how long al-Maliki sticks to his promises of not running for re-election, especially given the current climate of hostility to the tyrannical regimes throughout the Middle East. If an American presence remains in the country, he will probably not seek re-election, but if American troops were to leave Iraq, I don't think that the man would stick to his promises. The world has seen and heard far too many tyrants make the same promises that al-Maliki has made, only to get burned in the end.

I think the fact that international observers are even in Iraq to make sure that elections run smoothly lends credence to my point that Iraq is not really a democracy. Does Israel, Italy or Britain have international observers ensuring that their elections run smoothly? If Iraq is a functioning democracy, then why does the state need international observers to rectify their election results? Iraq sounds more like colonial Senegal than it does a functioning democracy.

Speaking of democracy, Iraq is also more of a democracy than Cuba or Burma. But then again, that's not saying much. The same goes for promoting the rule of law. Again, if 50,000 American troops were not stationed in Iraq, then al-Maliki's coalition government would collapse due to the frustration and alienation felt from his government's corruption.

Egypt had a fairly free and independent press, too. Al-Jazeera was there. CNN and the BBC were there. Egypt also held elections. Yet Egypt could not in any way be considered a democracy in the sense that Israel or France is.

The ball is your court, Dr. J! Convince me that Iraq is a functioning democracy, or admit that GWB's policies have utterly failed (at best) in providing peace, prosperity, and stability to the Middle East.

I have just turned on the barbecue, and am now back to finishing up my filleting duties. Dr. J throws this at me:

Brandon: It seems to me that you believe that the products of your imagination take precedence over readily verifiable reality. I can't argue with your imagination. It's too powerful.

I am dressing the succulent meat with a fine sauce now. Here is my response to the charge of being too imaginative:

But Dr. J! There is a major difference between imagination and speculation. There is a big difference. I did not make up the number of American troops still stationed in Iraq. I merely speculated on the prospects of democracy in Iraq if the United States were to withdraw her troops.

Again, do you think that the al-Maliki government represents freedom and liberty to the Iraqi people, or do you think the Iraqi people view him more in terms of a puppet - much like the Egyptian people view Mubarak?

I am licking the fine sauce from my fingers, and have begun to hum the tune of a popular Modest Mouse song aloud. Dr. J's response:

Brandon: It's tiresome dealing with the same issues over and over again.

1 American troops in Iraq are like American troops in France in 1945;

[2] I assume rank-and-file Iraqis recognize that the coalition Maliki government is the most representative government they have ever had.If they don't, they are mistaken and it does not change the facts. I would guess, speculate, that they deplore its weaknes. My guess is not a fact, however;

3 Mubarak is not a puppet. He is a home-grown tyrant who enjoyed support from various western governments including ours. If he were a puppet, Obama would have ordered him out a week ago and he would be gone.

Ah! The fresh sizzle of a big fish being barbecued in my backyard on a warm, sunny, February afternoon in Santa Cruz, California! My response to Dr. J's speculations:

Brandon: It's tiresome dealing with the same issues over and over again.
Dr. J: With all due respect, this is a topic that needs to be discussed. After all, it is you and I who are doing the fine-stitching of democracy, and it would be a shame if the discussion were to draw to a close because the teacher became bored with the student’s prodding. Besides, it was you who initiated the discussion on democracy in Iraq, and I feel that this is a topic worth continuing to discuss.
"American troops in Iraq are like American troops in France in 1945;"
Not so. France in 1945 was just liberated from German rule by an American military that was fighting in the most destructive war in all of human history. Furthermore, the intimate connection between France and the United States stretched (indeed stretches) back to far beyond the founding of our great republic, and our cultures, our histories, and our ways of life were (and are) much more developed than our connections with the people of Iraq.

In addition, pre-Vichy France had republican institutions, the rule of law, a healthy respect for world trade, and a skeptical spirit about it that is not present in modern-day Iraq. Pre-Vichy France had also been built by the blood, sweat and tears of the French people, and was in no way a top-down creation by more powerful outside states trying to create a structure that would balance out powers in their region of the world.

Iraq, in contrast, was created by European imperialists after the first world war with no regard to the institutions, ethnic territories, and histories associated with the peoples in what is now Iraq. There was no common bond between the disparate peoples, and I’m sure that very few of them had a say in what the new Iraqi government would consist of.

When the United States invaded Iraq in 2003, there was no destructive war going on. The idea of what the West was and ought to be was not at stake. There were no rivalries among the major states violently grappling for power and prestige. There was only a brutal dictator (one who was installed by the American state I might add), who had decided to disregard his master’s bidding and do things his own way.

There was no conception of a radical, and if necessary, violent change that needed to be implemented for France to become a self-governing polity again. Everything that the French needed to be self-governing and independent were already present in their institutions and their mores, and the only thing keeping them from bearing fruit was the occupation of their territory by Nazi Germany, a powerful, hostile state bent on governing the whole of continental Europe.

So American troops in 1945 France played a role far different from the one in present-day Iraq. In 1945, the United States was playing the role of Europe’s liberator; in 2003, the United States was playing the role of world policeman.
"I assume rank-and-file Iraqis recognize that the coalition Maliki government is the most representative government they have ever had.If they don't, they are mistaken and it does not change the facts. I would guess, speculate, that they deplore its weaknes. My guess is not a fact, however;"
Ah! Here I feel it is pertinent to bring up your accusation that Libertarians (capital L) are elitist. Your statement that the Iraqi people are “mistaken” for failing to recognize that the Maliki government is the most representative they’ve ever had seems to me to be a bit…paternalistic.

Your speculation that the Iraqis deplore the Maliki government’s weakness instead of its corruption could indeed be quite true, but I would argue that the people of Iraq probably believe that the Maliki government, despite the elections, is hardly representative of their disparate and self-interested wants and needs.

Again, just because elections were deemed to be clean by international observers (however hostile they may have been towards the Bush administration) does not negate the fact that Iraqis are disillusioned by the current democratic process. If I am not mistaken, there were many domestic parties that refused to take part in the political process, largely because they felt that their interests would not be represented in the said process.

To reiterate my point, I would argue that Iraqi disillusionment has more to do with the fact that the Maliki government is protected by 50,000 American troops in the state, and that a vast majority of the people there view him to be a mere puppet of the American republic.

The democratic process can be manipulated in a wide variety of ways - as evidenced by the fact that even authoritarian China (among others) holds routine elections - and the Iraqi people are not as stupid as some international observers believe them to be. Again, if liberal democracy is to be implemented by a people, it must come from the ground up, not from the top down.

This also broaches the question as to why the Bush administration felt that a parliamentary democracy was a better fit for the Iraqi people than a federal republic like the one that has bestowed upon the United States untold wealth, liberty, and independence.
‎"Mubarak is not a puppet. He is a home-grown tyrant who enjoyed support from various western governments including ours. If he were a puppet, Obama would have ordered him out a week ago and he would be gone."
Yet here I feel it is pertinent to bring up my point that the Egyptian people certainly don’t view Mubarak as an independent actor, and that, like the Iraqis, they look at the time and money (however insignificant it may seem to our wealthy society) that Washington has invested in dictators across the region (especially in Egypt) and conclude that Mubarak (and Maliki) is indeed a puppet.

And although there is a general consensus among you and I that the two of us are much more keen international observers than the wonks in Washington, it would serve us well to understand that the vast majority of policymakers in the United States are not as smart as they think they are. Powerful domestic factions on both the Left and the Right still seem to think that supporting dictatorships is a much better route to preserving peace and stability in the Middle East (and elsewhere), and the Obama administration is probably taking political calculations into consideration when dealing with the Mubarak regime. I would speculate that Obama has not ordered him out because the administration still views him as a far better alternative than a democratic Egypt.

Just consider, after all of the corruption and illegal measures that the Obama administration has engaged in to cram his socialist agenda down the throats of the American public, how he is viewing his options in regards to making domestic political alliances work for his benefit. Keeping Mubarak in power despite the popular opposition to his regime may lead to fruitful domestic exchanges with both the still-powerful neoconservative Right and the Lieberman Left in Washington.

With all this being said, I am still confused as to how a man with your intellect and keen sense of observation about foreign cultures could continue to support the position of the Bush administration to invade, occupy, and institutionalize the state of Iraq. I realize that we live in the People’s Socialist Green Republic of Santa Cruz, and that most of the individuals here are adamantly anti-war (mostly for the wrong reasons, of course), but do you think it is possible that perhaps you simply jumped on the Bush bandwagon because of the animosity you felt for our intellectual and political enemies? That perhaps you made a lapse in judgment on this issue.

After all, there are many strains of anti-war thought, and perhaps changing your mind on this issue may lead to some fruitful ammunition to be used against our enemies down the road. Because we both know that left-wing ideology is inherently imperialistic, isolationists, and authoritarian at its core, and nothing serves to bring about such control over society more than the cause of war with foreign peoples.

Dr. J's final response to my fantastic fishing and barbecuing skills:

OK, I stand corrected. On everything.

Mmmmm! Dig in, folks, while the eating is good!

Bitter Tears and Ruminations

2011-02-07T10:37:00.000-08:00

I try to limit my voyages out to the downtown Santa Cruz scene to once a month. I usually go with a friend of mine that used to be a frat boy at UCSC until he got kicked out for bad grades (he is now enrolled as a business major at SJSU and SFSU). He recently got booted out of a 2 year relationship because his girlfriend cheated on him with her ex-boyfriend.

My agenda on these nights out usually consists of dancing at a trendy club, watching my friend get wasted, and then following him back to a house to finish off the night with a round of lamentations and questions as to why his girlfriend did what she did to him. On the most recent occasion there was a group of these youngsters that decided to get really drunk and then try to figure out what was wrong with them.

I explained to them that nothing was wrong with them, and that they needed to cut all ties with their ex's in order to properly heal and move on. Most of them had had contact with their ex's within the last 12 hours of our clubbing "fun". In every relationship there is the person who gives everything they have and there is one person who selfishly takes it all and keeps it to his or her self. The best way forward was to painfully remove their lovers from their lives, and begin the arduous task of healing.

These kids are all in their early twenties, so I know, quite joyfully, that their true loves are out there waiting for them, and easily within a few years time. By the time they turn 24 or 25, they will be madly in love again with their perfect mate. It is pretty common knowledge that nice, genuine people go through a painful but passionate first relationship, get hurt deeply, and then eventually find someone that is just perfect for them. This is what will happen to Anna as well.

For me, though, no such process will occur. I had a painful relationship in my early twenties and I indeed found someone that was perfect for me a few years later. Unfortunately, I callously let her go for reasons that I cannot begin to know about. Anna was, according to official storyline of how good people fall in love, supposed to be "the one".

I don't know if I will ever find love again. Nothing could ever be as pure as the love I had with Anna. I do know, however, that Anna's story will end happily, and that in a few years time, when she eventually forgets about me, forgives me for all the awful things I have done to her, and musters up the courage to let her guard down again, she will fall happily in love with a great man that will take care of her, will love her, and will be the father of her beautiful and intelligent children.

For me, though, the road taken will be a lonely one, but one that is full of selfish adventures, absent-minded musing, and lots of close brushes with death. I am the selfish one in relationships, and Anna gave everything she had to make things work between us. I took her for granted and I paid the price. Some people just don't have what it takes to grow up and work as a team.

To love, and to everybody who has dared to try it.

Oh Yeah!

2011-02-06T23:44:00.001-08:00

So, my boss - the BIG boss a.k.a. the owner - of three different stores throughout the county, recently asked me if I'd like to house- and cat-sit for him and his wife while they go off for a three week vacation to Europe for his birthday.

He lives up in the hills on the west side of Santa Cruz, which is where all the rich folks and the spoiled brats from UCSC live. His mansion has a deck that overlooks the Monterey Bay. I get to stay there for three weeks. No more hippie house! No more stinky stray animals and stinkier hippies for three whole weeks!!! Whoo-hoo! I'll post some pictures of the view in a couple of weeks.

Oh, and the fact that the man who signs my paychecks is trusting me with his home and his pets is a big deal too. Most employers - especially CEO's like my boss - do not ask employees to do such things. I consider it an honor, and even though I just wash dishes and make sandwiches on the weekends, I feel like I contribute a lot to the business and to my fellow workers' well being.

The dreams I have been having suck. I will never be a Mormon again, but I definitely need to work through some issues regarding my past. I don't want to hurt anybody, and my family is extremely open-minded when it comes to my decisions in life (they have to be, because they know just how far I've come as a human being and I know they love having their Brandon back - tee-hee! see what happens when you set your standards low?), so the battle to confront my past will not be fought by me alone. I just don't know how to go about dealing with it.

Then there is the whole death thing...

Cabrillo starts tomorrow, and I have another internet debate with Dr. Delacroix I'd like to post sometime soon (I'm sure you are all thrilled to hear). Love

Another One

2011-02-06T07:19:00.000-08:00

This time Uncle Ray was teasing Kim, Tacy, Michael and I while G & G and Aunt Cindy stood on either side of him.

Then he mentioned something about his temple trip, and at that moment it was brought to my attention that he had died the week before, and no one had told me about it. Tacy leaned over to me and explained that his death was the reason he had brought up "the temple" with us.

Before that, I was getting nagged by my mother, and there was a cat and a dog chasing mice around the old house at 1680 S.

What the hell is going on with me?

The Terrible Price of Fame

2011-02-04T23:04:00.000-08:00

I used to be pretty well-known around town. The fame was mostly as a fun-loving, too-smart-for-his-own-good kind of kid, and then later on as a party boy before finally settling in as a loser.

It was hard keeping up with my image, and I paid a terrible price for it. Aside from my health, I also had to deal with people that i would not really choose to associate with anymore. Sluts. Bros. And later on: junkies.

Since I began to post maps on my blog, I have been flooded with hits from all across the globe. At first I was thrilled to see all the different places and, in turn, all of these different places' and what they were searching for. It has been very interesting.

But I am tired of the lack of intimacy on my blog. I just want it to be back to normal, and so I have deleted all of my posts (I think) that had maps on them. Hopefully the uproar will die down in the near future. :P

Fame sucks, and I never want to have it in my life again. I pity all of the people who yearn for fame and popularity. Their lives will become empty, dull, and void of anything worthwhile. Then again, perhaps that is why some people seek it...

Whoops!

2011-02-03T23:32:00.001-08:00

I got sidetracked on my rant concerning some past misdeeds done to me while talking about BBBS. Forgive me.

I have taught the children a new concept. I give them a high five, followed by a knuckle-bump, and then I ask them to slap me some skin "down low". When they swing for the "down low" delivery I swoop my hand out their way and pretend to smooth my hair while chastising the kids for being to slow.

The concept has caught on, but yesterday one of the kids was spotted by the supervisor doing it to another of the kids, and he was called out on it. In other words, I got my first kid in trouble yesterday, but for some familiar reason, all I can do is smile about the situation.

I love y'all

Checkin' Up Checkin' In

2011-02-03T17:09:00.000-08:00

Hey y'all, here is my life's breakdown right now:

Still no sponsor, but I"m getting closer. Y'all know how long it takes me to get out of my shell.

Cabrillo starts on Monday, and my Honors course at De Anza is going...okay. The professor is a socialist (not to be confused with a left-wing liberal), and our Honors project is to do research on California's budget "crisis". Usually libertarians can find plenty of room for agreement with the far Left, but California's budget is not one of those areas. I'm a little disappointed that the professor has chosen to use California's budget as an Honors topics for a political thought and theory class.

Work is fabulous.

My volunteer gigs are a lot of fun. I am so glad that I did them. When I first applied for BBBS, I had no car and I had to bus to the front office for my interview and to get my paperwork in (I didn't have a mailing list at the time). I went through a lot of trouble to get this volunteer position, and I am truly thankful that I got it. Here's a funny story: just after I had found out about the position, I blogged about it, and the following day - while riding the bus - I received a text from my ex bragging about how one of her new male friends also worked with children in an after-school program and that this particular friend didn't drink, either. I have wondered why she felt the need to tell me this information for quite some time now, and I think that the reason is because she wanted to make me feel like I wasn't as special as she knew I was. She wanted to let me know that I had already been replaced, and that there was nothing I could do to stand out above the crowd. I probably thought about this incident a bit too hard, though.

I have been following through with most of my New years resolutions pretty well. I exercise quite frequently, and I am probably in the best shape of my life since the post-construction work "era". I have not been dating, though. I just don't have the time or the patience for it at the moment, but - BUT - I have not been slutting around either. Right now I'm just focusing on myself.

I didn't personally know Mr. LaCara, but my condolences go out to his family and the community of Placerville. A lot of people view the shooting as a shock, but as someone who used to creep around the slums and the nether-regions of Placerville, I cannot say that I am not all that surprised the shooting occurred. To make the national news two years in a row for a particular act of brutal violence is not a good thing. Love.

The Throes of Liberalism Part 3

2011-02-03T00:45:00.000-08:00

This is Part 3 of an ongoing debunkfest I am having with a family member's recent blog post concerning American politics. I would have laughed it off if it hadn't been both condescending AND naive at the same time. Much of her condescension and naivety undoubtedly stems from her intellectual inability to get beyond Party politics and into the realm of political philosophy, which is where the minds of truly great thinkers end up.

You can find Part 2 here and Part 1 here

I am pursuing a point-by-point debunking of her rant in an effort to teach my loyal readers (all three of you) lessons in logic and lessons in how to think about the issues you are passionately involved in. Let's learn together! Dr. Strayer's third bullet point is not much more logical than her first two, but if we look past the fallacious appeal to emotion so fraught in her rant, we can see that are indeed some intelligent arguments tucked in between the logical fallacies. She writes:

Unless you are the CEO of a health insurance company, work for a health insurance company, or a multi-millionaire you are benefiting from the health care bill already. You get to be on your parents insurance until 26 (already saving my (anti-health care reform) family hundreds of $ each month) you can't be rejected or denied payment from insurance companies because of a pre-existing condition (my sister-in-law's cousin was born with a heart condition and always denied health care but recently got his first life-saving heart surgery), health insurance companies have competition (straight out of the capitalist rulebook), and ER visits (one of the leading cause of state health care deficits) have already seen a decrease in the ER being used as primary care as people gain greater access to affordable insurance.

How wonderful for me! Who do I thanks for such beneficence?

In all seriousness though, you can plainly see that Dr. Strayer is angling to paint her opponents as a side with intricate connections to the fascistic American health care system. Such wild-eyed attacks on "multi-millionaires" and insurance companies are common among the condescending Left, and these attacks do bear some truth, but the poor fools should have taken a class in economics instead of a 'globalization of food' class while they were spending other people's hard-earned money attending college.

Let's break this tirade down point-by-point in hopes of gaining a better understanding of both how the world actually works, and how to think more like a philosopher and less like a Party stormtrooper.

You get to be on your parents insurance until 26 (already saving my (anti-health care reform) family hundreds of $ each month)

Um, actually I don't get to be on my parent's insurance because I'm not 26. What ObamaCare has done for me is raised the cost of attaining an insurance policy at all, and - due to crowding out effect of this fascistic law - has forced insurance companies into raising premiums and the price of co-pays and out-of-pocket expenses (that's me!). If that is not enough, the attempt to fix prices at a stable level through insurance policy ensures that less and less viable and creative plans will be available to the general public through an individualized process.

In other words, what ObamaCare has done is create a rigid and deeply conservative power structure that will not be flexible enough to satisfy or even meet the demands of individuals, families, and employers if not struck down by an independent judicial process.

Dr. Strayer has also failed to heed the lesson given by the 19th century French economist Frederic Bastiat, who explained in his essay That Which Is Seen, And That Which Is Not Seen in her deplorable analysis of how the age limit will affect families. It is already widely accepted, thanks to the realities we have witnessed through RomneyCare in Massachusetts, that insurance prices will go up because of the mandates, but what is not seen so clearly is the effect that mandates have on employment. Due to the rising costs associated with government intervention in the health insurance industry, employers are not able to hire as many people as they would otherwise be willing to do because of the excessive regulations imposed on them by governments, and this has a decidedly negative effect on the fortunes of families across the nation.

That a few 26 year old slackers may benefit from this law does not necessarily mean that the law is good for the overall health or economy of the nation.

you can't be rejected or denied payment from insurance companies because of a pre-existing condition

This is Economics 101, and the logical fallacy of appeal to emotion will do no good in convincing intellectually superior individuals of the law's supposed just cause. The whole purpose of insurance companies is to pay for services that are needed in the event of an emergency. Just like a fire insurance company would not insure a customer if the said customer's house was on fire, so the same logic applies to medical insurance. A business that is involved in paying for emergency medical procedures should not be forced by law to insure an individual that is known to have medical defects precisely because 1)this is bad for business, and 2)it distorts the natural rate of prices that are set when individuals enter into contracts concerning insurance policies. What ObamaCare has done, in effect, is force insurance companies to pay the damages for a burned-down house while it is still on fire and uninsured.

The condescending Left is correct to lament the fact that so many people are unable to afford medical care in this country, but they are confusing cause and effect. The reason so many people are attempting to get insurance is because prices on medical services have been skyrocketing over the past few decades. Hence the overall increase in demand for insurance services. So the problem here is not insurance companies attempting to do business, but rather the problem is the rising costs associated with medical care in general. When the Left (and, to be honest, the Right) figures this out, we will finally be able to strike the root of this problem.

Any guesses as to what has caused medical prices to increase exponentially over the past few decades?

health insurance companies have competition (straight out of the capitalist rulebook)

At first glance this a laughably absurd statement, but upon closer inspection Dr. Strayer has unwittingly stumbled upon a great truth in regards to the market (liberty) and the government (power). It is widely known to critical observers of Washington D.C. that ObamaCare was vigorously pushed by K Street lobbyists employed by a few large conglomerates of health insurance industries. So Dr. Strayer is right to point out that there is "competition", but the competition is limited to a few number of very large firms that took great care to ensure that entry into the market would be very, very difficult. This is a process which has come to be known as "rent-seeking", and the fact that so many Leftists are naive (purposely or not) to the fact that big corporations pushed for ObamaCare almost makes me laugh. Almost, but the bitter reality that my medical costs will be pushed even higher thanks to the federal government's involvement in the medical industry tempers my humor.

and ER visits (one of the leading cause of state health care deficits) have already seen a decrease in the ER being used as primary care as people gain greater access to affordable insurance

There is no correlation here between ObamaCare and a dip in ER visits (across the country?).

More Thoughts on Egypt

2011-02-02T22:00:00.000-08:00

There is much to be excited about in terms of the protests going on in Cairo at the moment. The people of Egypt, taking hope in the collapse of the nearby dictatorship of Tunisia, have taken it to the streets and called for the ouster of their American-backed dictator, Hosni Mubarak. I wish them well in their struggle against the vicious head of state and his security forces.

In terms of American foreign policy, this is a very big deal. Egypt's dictator has been one of Washington's most able tools in the Near East, and his list of accomplishments at the behest of Washington includes honoring a peace treaty with Israel (in which Egypt officially recognizes Israel as a state, unlike most of the other despotic Arab regimes in the region), and has kept Islamist influences out of the political and civil affairs of Egyptian daily life (through brutal repression tactics, I may add).

Steven A. Cook of Foreign Affairs and a specialist on Egyptian politics summarizes Mubarak's relationship with Washington as such:

[t]he United States was not responsible for the inequity of Mubarak's rule, but it did enable and benefit from it. Mubarak was long Washington's man in Cairo: he kept open the Suez Canal, repressed the Islamists, and maintained peace with Israel. In return, the United States provided much for Egypt, contributing billions in economic assistance over the years to build up the country's infrastructure, agricultural technology, and public health programs. Yet this U.S. assistance, while certainly contributing to Egypt's development, also served to undermine the nationalist legitimacy of the regime. After all, how could Mubarak boast of Egyptian pride and ability when USAID employees were nestled in many government ministries?

Here we must forgive Cook's ignorance of his own analysis regarding the United States and responsibility for Mubarak and instead focus on just how closely intertwined Washington is with Mubarak's vicious regime.

So for the United States, Mubarak's reign has been one of immense value to its Near East policy, and this fact has been exemplified by the cautious remarks being made by President Obama and senior officials in his cabinet. Vice President Joe Biden has even gone so far as to claim that Mubarak is not a dictator at all, but rather a friend of the United States. In addition, Egypt and Israel are the two largest recipients of American military aid on the planet, with Egypt receiving about $1.2 billion annually.

To make matters worse for Washington's foreign policymakers, most Egyptians - regardless of their political leanings - view the United States and Israel unfavorably, to say the least. Given that the United States has supported the Mubarak regime through thick and thin over the last 30 years, and given that Israel is full of Jews, the political ramifications of the popular overthrow of Mubarak could spell deep trouble for both states. Echoes of 1979 and the Iranian revolution, in which an American-backed dictator was ousted and replaced with an Islamist regime, ring loud and clear in the minds of many American foreign policy analysts.

But all is not lost.

The best thing that policymakers in the United States could do in this situation is exactly what they are not doing, or have not done for the past 65 years, and that is throw their diplomatic and public support behind the popular revolution. Yes, this will mean that Islamist elements will be involved in Egypt's political process, and yes this will mean that attitudes towards Israel will probably stiffen, but, as Shadi Hamid of the Brookings Institution says, a new democratic government "will not threaten the peace treaty the two countries signed more than three decades ago. Egyptian opposition figures across the political spectrum know this is a line that cannot be crossed."

In regards to the Islamist elements in Egyptian democratic politics, Jacques Delacroix of Liberty writes:

[t]he Muslim Brotherhood, mother of all violent jihadists, is a real force in Egypt. It does not mean it’s bound to win. There is no historical destiny. Yet, the fear of Islamist forces in those countries is not a sufficient reason to ignore the Egyptian longing for democracy. To think otherwise is morally repugnant and it demonstrates a striking lack of political vision.

Or, in other words, there is no guarantee that the Islamist parties in Egypt will gain a meaningful hold on the democratic process, so there should really be no fear in Washington of unabashedly supporting (publicly, not militarily, of course) the overthrow of its lackey.

In addition to lending cause to the popular uprising against a regime that is wholeheartedly backed by Washington, the United States government should cease all aid to Egypt and instead present the newly-established democracy with a unilateral trade deal that will provide some much needed competition into the Egyptian economy and assure foreign observers and investors alike that the United States is fully interested in engaging with the new democratic government in Cairo.

Although these two policies will probably not be undertaken by the Obama administration, I feel it pertinent to post such a policy prescription anyway, so that when the blowback for supporting a ruthless dictator comes back to haunt our society once again, I will have something to point to and say: "We could have avoided this if only we had followed the advice of the Founders."

Bad Dreams

2011-02-02T17:40:00.000-08:00

I had a dream last night about my father and my Uncle James. For whatever reason, both of them were at a funeral for someone, and both of them were very old. My father was giving a prayer of some sort and he broke down in tears and began to mumble about the horrible life he had lived. He was all by himself so I had to get up and console him, at which point my uncle broke down as well.

I don't know what brought this on, but it scared the hell out of me.

Federalism as Internationalism

2011-02-01T23:07:00.000-08:00

From the book Peace Pact by David Hendrickson:

The word "federal" [...] is one that must be used with some caution, since it now carries meanings and connotations distinctly at odds with the understanding of the 18th century. In the late twentieth century, the meaning attached to "federalism" is one difficult to disassociate from a strong central government, and the federal idea has almost altogether lost its formerly close association with diplomacy and international order. In its 18th century signification, the case was otherwise. The term "federal" then comprehended constitutionalism and diplomacy alike. The federative power, as Locke had defined it, concerned those powers of war and peace, of treaty and alliance [...] At the root of the federal principle, as then conceived, was the idea of a covenant or foedus (its etymological root) [...] Today, "internationalism" or "multilateralism" would be used to describe the application of these values to interstate relations [...] Statesmen who sought to instantiate such values in a world of states spoke instead of the construction of a "federative system" or a "federal union". The ideal proposed itself as a [...] solution to the baffling question of how to secure international order in a system of sovereignties prone to collective violence and unilateral action.

I first came across this idea when reading Ron Paul's book A Foreign Policy of Freedom, in which he expounded upon the republican order of the United States in the pre-Civil War period to the House of Representatives.

Ron Paul's presidential run of 2008 actually helped me to identify with a cause worth pursuing, and, along with the stubborn refusal of my mother to let her son become a loser, the sweet and precious love of my ex-girlfriend Anna, and the gentle understanding of my Aunt Chelsea, inspired me to set out upon the world and learn to live again. Through Ron Paul's courageous stand against militarism, I was able to find something that was intellectually stimulating.

Love!

Farts In A Can

2011-02-01T19:16:00.000-08:00

So the UC system has been receiving a record number of applications the year: domestically, nationally, and internationally.

I have already had to go through a much more arduous process than last year, even with my transfer agreements that I signed.

I got an e-mail from the UC system asking me about my records at Consumnes River College and Utah Valley State College. I replied that Consumnes River College morphed into Folsom Lake College during the mid part of the decade and that UVSC is no longer in existence.

If they further prod into my background, I may end up not being able to attend a UC on the basis of my failures over 10 years ago. I will, however, provide essays explaining how I spent my time in Utah smoking weed out of beer cans and working at Wienerschnitzel rather than attending school (which was exactly what happened), but I am not sure if the UC system will tolerate it. I did not put UVSC on my application because I did not attend the school, and I didn't think my enrollment there was even recorded.

My past may yet come back to bite me in the ass. Hard. Pray for me, and here is a map of Texas's counties: I don't know why I thought of Texas and her political districts, but I did. Can you believe that government bureaucrats took Thomas Jefferson out of the history books and replaced him with a Protestant minister? I can, because that is exactly what happens when you give the state a monopoly on goods and/or services.

A Plopper For You (And You Too)

2011-01-30T22:18:00.000-08:00

Its a beautiful life.

I've come to the bitter realization that I need God in my life. I hate religion. I hate dependency. I hate praying and I hate asking for help. But God answers my shit. He (or she) opens doors for me. I also hate being humbled. To me, it seems an awful lot like God is just some jerk-off who likes to make people miserable, but it is apparent that I am the real jerk-off, and that it is I that needs to get with the program and ask for help.

Its really cool to see what people all over the world are searching for in terms of maps. Indonesians are, by and large, the most likely to search for themselves online, while the Middle East, the Korean peninsula, world population density, and Switzerland inspire the most curiosity. Individuals from around the world - from Ghana to South Korea to Kuwait to Israel to Brazil to France to Canada to Wyoming - are interested in learning more about other cultures and other ways of life.

I can see why globalization is looked upon with suspicion, but the passions of man are usually dimwitted and full of foolish fantasies. If looked upon rationally, anyone can see that the full-scale integration - economically, politically, and culturally - of the world would lead to untold benefits, if done right of course.

So, what would your idea of the best way forward for humanity be?

I love my job.

I was told that everybody knows when I close because my "station" is always perfectly clean and well done. These compliments are paid by Mexican immigrants, who, because of their socio-economic background and (probable) indoctrination in their public school system, are usually disdainful of white, yellow or (especially) black-skinned individuals. I had earned their trust a long time ago, but to earn their public praises is something that gives me pride.

Facebook sucks, and I am a little disappointed in myself that I got back on. I usually just stick to making sure no pictures that my mama would disapprove of end up on my "wall". I still like to share articles I've read that seem interesting, but thats about the extent of my activities.

My Political Thought class sucks. School at Cabrillo starts on the 7th. I had to drop an Honors course on ancient art history of the West, which kind of sucks because it looks really interesting, but I need to free up some unit space for my three majors. Hopefully somewhere down along the line my studies will take me to something like art history though. It would be cool to learn something about it. I could just Google it, though...

Love

Weepin' and A Wailin'

2011-01-30T10:11:00.000-08:00

A political map of Egypt:

Bring 'em down! Bring 'em down!

Yet another puppet dictator of the United States is being brought down in the Muslim world. And now there's going to be burnin' and lootin' tonight!

Who can stop the tears?

The United States needs to abolish all "aid" to foreign nations, as such "aid" ends up propping up dictators and giving the impression to oppressed peoples everywhere that the United States and its citizens support imperialism and dictatorship.

Trade not aid suckas! Get with the program.

Speaking of imperialism, Joe Biden certainly seems to think that Washington is imperialist. So, too, does Hillary Clinton (she also seems to think her job entails telling Egyptians how to behave politically as well). If only there were a way to show the world that there is a disconnect between the United States government and its people, too - just like everywhere else.

On a side note, there have been neighborhood organization efforts aimed at protecting private property and the implicit rules of order through Egyptian society. The looted treasures of state-funded, state-run "enterprises" are a different matter, though. Personally, I hope the people of Egypt burn down all of the American-supported dictator's buildings and monuments. All of 'em.

Bizarre Love Triangle: the Idealists, the Realists and the Isolationists

2011-01-28T12:03:00.000-08:00

Isolationist screeds in the United States are extremely rare these days, which, in my opinion, makes those who promote this noble doctrine to be individuals of exceptional character. I am a regular reader of the blog Eunomia (authored by Dr. Daniel Larison), which explicates isolationist critiques of current foreign policy (among other things) and I always enjoy what Dr. Larison has to say.

I also happen to find it rather odd that I am often slandered by my sparring partners on both the Left and the Right as being an isolationist, for one reason or another. I wouldn’t particularly mind being called such, except for the fact that, for reasons I hope to clarify shortly, my positions are hardly in line with those of the paleoconservative isolationists that I have grown to admire (if not disagree with more often than not).

The libertarian philosophy is one of individualism, internationalism, free trade, and the rule of law. My sparring partners often accuse of me of being an isolationist because of my opposition to wars and “nation-building” abroad, yet this opposition does not stem from a prejudice of robust international diplomacy. Rather, the war-weariness of libertarianism stems from the fact that war brings misery for the individual, it shatters international consensuses, it disrupts free trade, and it enables governments to ride roughshod over the rule of law in the name of security and of a centrally-planned war effort.

However, this stance does not entail that the United States simply withdraw from the world diplomatically and economically. I am here going to bring myself out of the closet and reveal that I am a realist when it comes to foreign policy, and that I believe the United States could benefit immensely from rigorous diplomatic efforts and free trade promotion – provided that the ideals behind the United States (individualism, free trade, republican internationalism, and the rule of law) are what guides our foreign policy in relationships with foreign entities.

Below is a post on Larison’s Eunomia blog lamenting Dr. Parag Khanna’s recent piece in Foreign Policy that hurrahs the secessionist movements currently agitating around the world (and especially around the Russian and Chinese peripheries). I found it to be profoundly solid, but ultimately unpersuasive.

The United States needs to be diplomatically engaged with the rest of the world. Its curious and inventive citizens have too much to offer the world, its republican form of government has too much to offer to the world, and its underlying philosophy of individualism is desperately needed in the world today.

I offer a critique of Dr. Larison’s post in the hopes of both 1) revealing that the libertarian position is not isolationist, and 2) that the United States can play an extremely positive role in global affairs. I also hope to distinguish the libertarian position on foreign policy with that of the Dr. Khanna’s and the other idealists over at Foreign Policy.

It must also be noted that my views on American foreign policy should not be taken to mean that they expound a "libertarian" version of foreign policy. The ideas and arguments here are solely my own, and based on deductions of my own way of thinking.

Dr. Larison’s writings are in italics and indented. Mine follow in the regular font. He starts his blog post off with a quote from Dr. Khanna:

Finally, we must be weary of status quo conservatism motivated by selfish concerns. Russia and China staunchly opposed Kosovo’s independence for the sake of their own quasi-imperial possessions, but did a sovereign government in Pristina really undermine Russia’s ironclad rule over Chechnya or China’s grip on Tibet? ~Parag Khanna

The piece by Dr. Khanna is very entertaining and offers a lucid perspective on the prevailing headwinds currently enrapturing Washington D.C.’s top wonks. I highly, highly recommend reading the piece, especially if you want to gain a better understanding of the world around the United States, of the atmosphere prevalent in D.C.’s foreign policy circles, and if you care to understand a distinct school of thought within American foreign policy – one that is long and storied – ironically labeled as Wilsonianism, after the 28th President of the United States who deceitfully led the American Republic into World War I under the guise of “promoting democracy” and fighting in “the war to end all wars”.

In short, Wilsonianism, which has been around since the Republic’s founding, adheres to the principle of “self-determination”, and argues that the United States should do all it can to promote self-determination (usually channeled under the guise of liberal nationalism) and democracy wherever possible and under whatever circumstances. Hence, the entrance of the United States in World War I to help defeat the cosmopolitan Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman empires.

It is a dangerous screed, and one that bewilderingly seems to attract the best and brightest minds (like Dr. Khanna’s) to its circles. Dr. Larison begins his response to Khanna's piece with this:

Last week I argued that an independent South Sudan would immediately have all of the problems of a failed state. The same already applies to many of the statelets and would-be statelets that Khanna mentions.

For those of you have chosen (unwisely I may add) to skip reading Dr. Khanna’s piece, the statelets that Dr. Larison is referring to include South Ossetia, Somaliland, and Darfur, as well as Southern Sudan, Palestine, and Kurdistan. There are many, many more than this, and Dr. Larison actually named a slough of them in another recent blog post here.

While it may seem like a solution to certain problems, and while it is designed to flatter the preferences of Wilsonians everywhere, re-opening the question of territorial boundaries established in the post-war period promises to ignite new conflicts and revive old ones. Partitions might be done reasonably well or poorly, but there is no reason to assume that “velvet divorces” would be the normal outcome. It is a profoundly bad idea, and it is not made any better by the fact that Moscow and Beijing also object to it.

Dr. Larison raises some excellent points here, especially in regards to Khanna’s overzealous call for the United States to engage in the promotion of secessionist movements throughout the world. He rightly criticizes Khanna’s bellicose position towards the interests of China and Russia as a “bad idea”, and he right to acknowledge that the question of territorial boundaries is never one that should be taken as lightly as Khanna’s piece has. The Wilsonian notion that the United States can and should be involved in the partition of a new global order based on the territorial boundaries of ethnic groups (or nations) is both foolhardy and dangerous.

Consider the example of relations between the United States and Russia when Washington intervened through NATO to partition Serbia up into smaller statelets, or consider what would happen if the United States suddenly called for independence of Jammu and Kashmir in India or of Tibet in China. If we go back a little farther in time, we can see how the foreign policy of Wilson himself played a role in the disintegration of the Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman empires. What sprung up in place of these decidedly decadent, but functioning, empires has puzzled foreign policy analysts on both sides of the Atlantic to this day and caused ample harm to the peoples inhabiting the regions in question.

Yet it is also true that many individuals, of all different types of nations, continue to live under oppressive regimes, regimes that are much less efficient, and much less cosmopolitan in nature than the Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman empires. Indeed, the main driving force behind the post-war decolonization movements has been, by and large, an artificial nationalism messily combined with the doctrines of socialist economics.

The situation that most of the decolonized world finds itself in today is succinctly summarized by Khanna as follows:

“many of the colonies that gained their independence a half-century ago have since experienced unmanageable population growth, predatory and corrupt dictatorship, crumbling infrastructure and institutions, and ethnic or sectarian polarization.”

In other words, the socialist calculation and artificial nationalism of these states have failed to unify the decolonized states into a cohesive society, have failed to provide prosperity and liberty, and have failed to earn their adherents the respect of the international community.

The United States, as a former colony itself, needs to seize upon this fact and pursue a foreign policy of freedom with the developing world on a case-by-case basis. If a region or a nation outside the periphery of other major powers (like China, India, and Russia) seeks to gain independence and international recognition due to oppressive features of a given regime, I do not see why the United States could not recognize such a move, and even convince other states to do the same. I do not see how presenting a newly-declared independent state – outside the peripheries of other major rivals – with a trade agreement (maybe a paragraph long) would be harmful to the United States’ or the region in question’s stability.

Pursuing such a policy would undoubtedly earn us a few enemies, especially in the capitals of the states that just lost territory, and I think Dr. Larison’s next line of reasoning and the concepts he invokes will help to better clarify his reasons for opposing virtually all interaction with the outside world.

The “status quo conservatism motivated by selfish concerns” protects weak states along with the strong: weaker states have their selfish concerns, too. It is the erosion of the principle of state sovereignty over the last twenty years that exposes weak states to the predations of major powers.

Perhaps, but I strongly disagree with Dr. Larison’s observations here. Not with the notion that weaker states have selfish interests too, but rather with the argument that state sovereignty has been eroding precipitously over the past twenty years. To the isolationist, free trade and international governance (including military alliances) are necessarily bad things for a state and its sovereignty, because these concepts are perceived to be taking away from the ability of a state to make decisions in its own interests. Yet the major powers and, to a lesser extent, the regional powers of the world are largely able to do what they want in terms of formulating domestic and foreign policies. Just think of the recent attempt by Brazil and Turkey to get Iran to play nice with its nuclear technology.

With the exception of the United States in Iraq and Afghanistan, the “weak states” of the world and their predation by major powers seems only to be occurring along peripheries of the major power’s territories, specifically in the region of the world traditionally under Russian influence. And even these predatory practices of the Russian state are largely aimed at defending Moscow’s peripheries from the incursions into region by the American state.

Rather, I would look at the situation of weak states outside the peripheries of great powers not as a steady erosion of state sovereignty, but rather as the last stage of colonization by Europeans a century ago. The weakness in these states was inherent from the beginning, as they were largely constructed to extract resources for shipment to European industry and to ensure that recently conquered non-Western rivals, whether monarchies, confederations, city-states, or empires, remained conquered once and for all. In order for a state to have sovereignty, it needs to be recognized by its own people as legitimate, and not by major powers (though it certainly helps!), and the structure of weak states, at least outside the peripheries of major powers, is illegitimate in the eyes of most the people living within these states.

If there is one thing more misguided than organizing foreign policy around “humanitarian” and democratist meddling in the affairs of other nations, it has to be the revival of the liberal nationalist conceit that there should be an independent nation-state for every group that wants one.

Hardly. The Wilsonian notions of humanitarian intervention and democratic nation-building are easily the most misguided ideals being espoused throughout Washington today, and the fact that some of the idealists over at Foreign Policy have latched onto liberal nationalism as a way to promote their misguided policies should not deter us from the fact that the United States has not pursued nor promoted liberal nationalism in its foreign policy since Wilson’s disastrous meddling in Europe over (nearly) a century ago.

Let us be clear: the NATO excursions into the Balkans had nothing to do with promoting liberal nationalism, and everything to do with humanitarian intervention, democratic state-building, and geostrategic maneuvering. The military excursions into Iraq, Afghanistan, Haiti, Somalia, and God knows where else over the past twenty years have nothing to do with the concept of liberal nationalism and everything to do with humanitarian intervention, democratic state-building, and/or geostrategic maneuvering.

Liberal nationalism, as it is promoted by the idealists, is extremely new on the scene in D.C. and is probably just one of the many, many fads that swing through the capital and are used to apply humanitarian intervention and democratic state-building to foreign policy proposals.

With this being said, I can see why Dr. Larison is extremely skeptical of the fresh calls for liberal states based around nationalism to be recognized around the world. Such a policy beckons the haunted ghost of Woodrow Wilson and the 100,000 needless deaths of American soldiers on the battlefields of World War I. Wilson sought to put an end to what he perceived to be the decadent empires of Austria-Hungary and Istanbul, and replace them with smaller states based upon the concept of nationality and parliamentary democracy (he did not advocate international republicanism because he thought his own republic to be backwards and ill-suited for the rigors of world affairs). The problems associated with both the Balkans and the Middle East largely stem from Wilson’s calls (and actions) to dissolve the cosmopolitan empires that held large and disparate groups of people together in relative harmony.

Yet there is nothing even remotely close to the Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman empires in the developing world today. Nothing (China and Russia and India are different stories, but we shouldn’t be anywhere near their peripheries militarily). When Wilson and the other Western powers dismantled their defeated enemies’ empires, they destroyed centuries of prejudice, tradition, intricate knowledge of local institutions, and adept governing practices with the stroke of a pen. Today’s states possess none of the know-how that those old Western empires did, and I think that a foreign policy of recognizing secessionist declarations in a lot of cases – again, outside of the peripheries of major powers – would be a major boon for the United States and its image abroad. A follow up with a trade deal (again, a paragraph long would do), a diplomatic embassy, and negotiations with other states throughout the region and abroad to recognize the independence of a new state may just bring about the stability and prosperity that seems so elusive at the current point in time.

Before anyone goes rushing to endorse a new wave of separatism, we should consider the consequences of separatist movements in the last twenty years. The Balkan Wars of the 1990s were partly the product of the international indulgence of the principle of self-determination, and they were made worse by the inevitable complication that some people stuck on the wrong side of the new border were not permitted their own self-determination. Some of the newly-independent states were free to expel and kill their minorities en masse, and their patrons looked the other way, because they were fighting for their independence. The partition of Serbia was a horrible mistake, and the partition of Georgia that has followed in its wake has been an unfortunate, predictable result of creating new arbitrary national borders to replace the old ones.

I agree. I don’t think the United States should endorse or even recognize secessionist and autonomist movements anywhere near the Russian (or Chinese) sphere of influence – unless Moscow (or Beijing) asks us to.

Eritrean independence, which was once viewed as a good example of a peaceful parting of the ways with Ethiopia, has become one more source of instability in the Horn of Africa. East Timor has proven to be one of the more harmless of the newly-independent states, but serves as a good example of how these “independent” states end up being failed-state dependencies that rely heavily on international support. Depending on how East Timor makes use of its large natural gas reserves, even those resources could prove to be a source of corruption and misrule. Even if most of the new states Khanna imagines prove to be little more than new East Timors, they would all still rank high among the world’s failed states.

Good point, as both Eritrea and East Timor are outside the peripheries of major powers. In cases like this, I don’t think that the United States has done enough diplomatically or economically. Where are our unilateral trade agreements with these states, and why isn’t the state department rigorously promoting (behind the scenes, of course) courses of action that would help to strengthen the rule of law and republican institutions? Viewed from another angle, though, both of these states (like South Sudan) had fought brutal, decades-long wars of secession with Jakarta and Addis Ababa, but during the time period of both these wars the Cold War was being fought and both of these regions were on the peripheries of either the United States or the Soviet Union.

Today there is no such contest going on, and I do not see why the United States needs not to endorse secession in calculated circumstances. Again, promoting secession should be off the table altogether – anywhere in the world, but recognizing secession in calculated instances would be very beneficial not only to the United States but to the people who have declared secession against a repressive regime.

Dr. Khanna seems to think that it is the duty of the United States to be involved with every major trend that comes and goes through international relations, and Dr. Larison is right to castigate the Wilsonian pipe dream of recognizing secessionist movements in the backyards of Russia and China as good things for world stability. Yet the isolationist position is no better for the self-interest of the republic either, as major benefits would be had if the United States were to support a selected array of secessionist movements in the post-colonial world.

Promoting individualism, republican internationalism, free trade, and the rule of law (not to mention world peace) abroad are items that the United States needs to be actively involved in diplomatically. But these goals should be carried out with a diplomatic corps that is much leaner and meaner, and the tasks of promoting such goals need to be carried out in a much more calculated manner. Both the idealists and the isolationists have it wrong on how the United States engages with the world.

Partitions cannot be separated from the ambitions and agendas of the major powers of the day. Some powers will want to bring the newly-independent states into their orbit, and their rivals will either try to block or find ways to sabotage those states. Instead of shielding weaker countries behind the principle of state sovereignty, Khanna’s proposal would open them up to something worse than the quasi-imperial domination of the status quo in China and Russia.

Yes, but if there are no major powers in the region, like, say for example, in sub-Saharan Africa and southeast Asia, I don’t see why the United States should not actively seek to bring these newly-created states into its “orbit”, by recognizing the right of these peoples to declare their independence from an oppressive regime and present them with a unilateral trade agreement, diplomatic recognition, and a blueprint (by example) of how to successfully adhere to the rule of law and republican government.

Again, I’m no Wilsonian, and I think that we should stay out of Russia’s and China’s backyards, but the isolationists seem to think that engaging with the world in a way that is creative or potentially game-changing at all is a terrible thing to do.

This suspicion of international engagement is something that should be admired, especially given the way the U.S. has conducted foreign policy over the past one hundred years, but instead of withdrawing from the world I think that we need to engage in it in a much more sophisticated way.

Promoting the rule of law, world peace, international republicanism, individualism, and free trade are all items that the United States needs to do on the world stage. But promoting policies that would infuriate our rivals, as proposed by Dr. Khanna and the other idealists at Foreign Policy would bring disaster to the international arena. Likewise, withdrawing from the world completely is unwise, as the United States has too much to offer the world to just isolate itself from our potential friends and neighbors.

On Liberty, Eccentricity, and My Grandpa

2011-01-26T14:00:00.001-08:00

Today was the most marvelous January day. I spent it walking around downtown Santa Cruz, doing some homework in the public library, and soon I will be headed out to hang with the kids of Big Brothers Big Sisters. Life. The following passage was written on January 19th, and it would seem that I have a penchant for writing my thoughts down, whether on paper or through the internet. Without writing, I would have no satisfiable outlet to the world around me.

1/19/2011

[...] the mere example of nonconformity, the mere refusal to bend the knee to custom, is itself a service. Precisely because the tyranny of opinion is such as to make eccentricity a reproach, it is desirable, in order to break through that tyranny, that people should be eccentric. Eccentricity has always abounded when and where strength of character has abounded; and the amount of eccentricity in a society has generally been proportional to the amount of genius, mental vigour, and moral courage which it contained. ~ John Stuart Mill, bastion of liberty in the 19th century

My grandfather was an eccentric man, and he was also a genius. So too, are his sons.

He was fond of bringing home obscure books that he'd come across at Snowline Hospice. Because my grandfather was also kind and thoughtful, most of the books were for other people. He would bring me books on notable figures of the 20th century (except for Hitler; he kept those books for himself) and, as a way to push my buttons, hagiographic books on Abraham Lincoln - the dictator who laid waste to an old republic in order to save it.

I also have a penchant for picking up books, though I am far more selfish and much more interested in in books pertaining to political philosophy, economic theory, historical accounts between the West and "the rest", ethnographies on political organization, and tracts on the virtues of libertarianism.

My grandfather, by contrast, seemed focused on World War II, which altered his life in a radical and fundamental way, herbs and herbal remedies from American pioneers to ancient Chinese doctors to Indian shamans throughout the New World, UFO's and alien life, and Book of Mormons in foreign languages.

The Mormonism of my grandfather's time was much more different than the one today. It was much more odd, and the Mormons of old prided themselves on such nonconformist doctrines and ways of life. Today, Salt Lake City is waging a full-scale advertisement campaign throughout the United States to assure Americans that Mormonism is indeed compatible with mainstream America - whatever that means.

So in part I can see why my genius of a grandfather chose to become a Mormon, but I often wonder if my grandmother had anything to do with his conversion. He often had a way of bringing up his testimony (a Mormon term [I think] for a personal religious conviction) to me in a nonchalant, non-condescending, non-hostile way, even during my darkest hours as an angry young man. The nature of his musings are highly personal, but I will let you know that they were tender moments for me. One time, in particular, he let me know that the decision to convert to Mormonism was entirely his own.

My grandfather rarely spoke of my grandmother, but when he did, it usually pertained to a point he wanted to get across to me. My grandparents had a good marriage, and raised wonderful children, so his heartfelt advice towards relationships with women was always cherished. Sometimes I still regret forcing Anna into breaking up with me, and I know that my grandfather was the first to shake his head at his grandson's selfish stupidity. I can only hope that he sees some things that I cannot, and is now laughing at me every step of the way.

I am still trying to put my finger on the concept of love.

I'm Hopeless

2011-01-25T22:04:00.001-08:00

I barely lasted a week without my blog or my Facebook.

My name is Brandon and I am addicted to cyberspace.

I just can't stay away. There is too much going on in the world that needs to be explained in a certain sort of way: my way! Haha!

But seriously, without my point of view (and yours) about the world around us and how it works, this life would be destitute. We would be unthinking. Our existence would not...exist.

I am not too worried about California bureaucrats reading my blog or checking out my Facebook profile. I'm pretty sure that they won't even bother, as my grades are good enough to be a shoo-in.

*sigh*

I hope to have some cool stuff coming up.

The Throes of Liberalism Part 2

2011-01-16T20:55:00.000-08:00

The second bullet point issued by Dr. Strayer is, unfortunately, no more logical than the first one. At this segment in the point-by-point refutation of her rant, I feel that it is pertinent to remind readers that the purpose of this exercise is to teach you how to think, and is not in any way designed to make Chelsea feel like a tool or a pawn.

On to Dr. Strayer's second bullet point:

2. I can understand people who vote against abortion and gay marriage because of their religion, but how can those same people ignore their religion and vote against helping the poor or access to health care for all? (especially since no R politician has done anything against abortion for over a decade) I don't think Christ said "help the poor and succor those that stand in need of succor, but only if it doesn't maybe probably might raise my taxes or be for an immigrant or be for gays. And only if they pick themselves up by their bootstraps first".

This is an especially deceptive statement, and so I'm going to break down the first sentence fairly succinctly, and hopefully provide an answer to Dr. Strayer's loaded question. The first sentence reads:

I can understand people who vote against abortion and gay marriage because of their religion, but how can those same people ignore their religion and vote against helping the poor or access to health care for all?

The reason that Dr. Strayer's statement is a loaded question is because of the nature of the way in which she frames the question. In order to be fallacious, the nature of the question must be based upon assumptions (in this case that people who vote against abortion and gay marriage are religious) and be used in a rhetorical way (in this case as a tool for pushing a certain point of view) that serves to angle the reader into responding in a certain way that is acceptable to Dr. Strayer's point of view.

What's even more absurd about this statement is the fact that not a single religion is named to support the crude stereotype that Dr. Strayer has exploited. For instance, there are plenty of voters who vote for abortion rights and gay marriage because of their religious beliefs, so the picture painted of the religious voter as anti-abortion and anti-homosexual is just plain wrong, and either Dr. Strayer, who holds a Ph.D. in Anthropology from a prestigious private university and specializes in religious beliefs, is ignorant of this fact, or she is being disingenuous with her readers.

This brings me to the second half of her first sentence. Again, the logical fallacies in this bullet point are so abundant that I am fortunate to be able to pick and choose a variety of different ones to use as a teaching device for my own readers. In the case of Chelsea's second half of her first sentence, I am going to introduce the fallacy of hasty generalization, which, if you cannot tell by the name of the fallacy, "involves basing a broad conclusion upon the statistics of a survey of a small group that fails to sufficiently represent the whole population." Such a vulgar argument deserves a much harsher criticism than the one I am generously giving, but I will allow myself one indulgence, and this is to ask Dr. Strayer if she has a specific religion in mind when she paints such a grotesque picture of religious beliefs in the United States. I cannot know for sure, but perhaps her next of reasoning will help us to elucidate her thoughts on this subject a bit more clearly. Could we be so lucky?

(especially since no R politician has done anything against abortion for over a decade) I don't think Christ said "help the poor and succor those that stand in need of succor, but only if it doesn't maybe probably might raise my taxes or be for an immigrant or be for gays. And only if they pick themselves up by their bootstraps first."

Oh lucky day! Her illogical tirade has indeed helped us to shed light on her reasoning and willful ignorance! But first, her claim that the Republican Party has done nothing to deny individual choice in regards to abortion is false, although at this point in my refutation I do not think that this small revelation of fact comes as much of a surprise. Remember, there are those of us in society who appeal to ideas, to concepts, and to intellectual integrity in matters of debate, and there are those of us who appeal to Party doctrine and raw emotion (the ancient Greeks called these individuals demagogues).

Dr. Strayer's curious appeal to authority (another logical fallacy, and one that, unfortunately, we will see more and more of as we continue down her bullet points), is, at first glance, baffling. However, once I peel back the superficial layers encompassing such fallacious reasoning, the reader may be able to get a better understanding of why Dr. Strayer feels the need to promote such intellectually dishonest blather.

The tactic of bringing Jesus into the discussion of politics (*sigh*) is one that we are all quite familiar with, I am sure. Most of my readers have probably done so at one point in their life or another (I remember when a trophy wife told me I was going to be very sad when I had to face Jesus in heaven for protesting George W. Bush's appearance in El Dorado Hills. I retorted that Jesus was going to send her to hell for having fake tits and too much money).

The explanation for this phenomenon has to do with the profound state of ignorance that most people dwell in. Because they are unable to give detailed, technical examples to support their gaudy expositions on how society ought to be, individuals are inclined to appeal to a higher authority to either A) give concrete assurance to their audience that their way of doing things is indeed correct, or B) that their political opponents are much more foolish than they, and are much more hypocritical to boot (i.e. Party doctrine).

So, to sum up why demagogues like Chelsea deliberately appeal to authority to gain an upper hand in a political debate, it is important to remember that such people, even if they have intimidating credentials like a Ph.D. or a J.D., are just as likely to be as ignorant - if not more so - than you are in matters of political affairs. If there is an appeal to an authority like God or a sacred prophet in matters of political affairs, beware, for the debate is deceptive, and points and counter-points are based off of ignorance and/or willful deceit.

Wow. I feel like I just had to watch a week's worth of the Rachel Maddow Show's clips on her economic statements. No remote control. No commercials. Let us hope that Dr. Strayer's third bullet point will be much more logical, much more fact-based, much more civil in tone, and much more cautious in the way she promotes her political know-how.

Thoughts On Death

2011-01-15T23:00:00.000-08:00

Another family patriarch has passed on. It happened earlier this evening.

With this sad passing, a new dawn emerges. But first, we must get through this dark and dreary night.

I am tired. And frustrated.

One day at a time. I'll finish dismantling Chelsea's illogical tirade another day.

The Throes of Liberalism Part 1

2011-01-15T00:29:00.000-08:00

Liberalism as a philosophy is what has largely governed the Western way of life since the American Revolution. Where liberalism was extinguished by its ideological foes, there has been bloodshed, fear, war, and isolationism.

But what is liberalism? My grandfather associates liberalism with the Democrat Party, and most Americans are apt to do the same. The opposing political party, the GOP, is the conservative party. However, I'd like to throw this concept at you: that the conservative wing of the Republican Party is much more liberal than the liberal wing of the Democrat Party. That is, what conservatives in the United States have fought for politically is the conservation of liberalism.

Now put that in the back of your mind to stew for a bit.

Liberalism as a philosophy is the belief that the individual is supreme in society. This radical doctrine, which is by no means limited to the history of Western thought, took root in Europe as it had never before taken root anywhere else in the world. The result: industrialization, longer life spans, healthier societies, etc., etc.

Yet in the midst of the industrial revolution, liberalism split along two distinct lines: one school of thought sought to adhere to the classical conception of liberalism, where government ought not to interfere in the lives of individuals unless force or fraud had been used. This conception of liberalism is today represented in the United States by libertarians and fiscal conservatives. The other school of thought within liberalism to emerge during the industrial revolution was that of the new liberalism, which, contrary to socialism (which also arose in the midst of the industrial revolution), still maintained that the individual was supreme in society.

The adherents of the new liberalism argued that government could play an active role in fostering individual freedom, through things like public education, public health centers, etc., etc. To the new liberal, government could be used to promote individual liberty, while still maintaining that the rights of all individuals are not trampled on by the majority.

So the differences between liberals and conservatives in modern American discourse are actually quite minute. This is actually one of the reasons, I believe, that the United States is in a much better fiscal situation than Europe. On the old continent, European parliaments are still sprinkled with socialist, fascist, and communist parties, all of whom are committed to subjugating the individual to the will of the collective.

I hope that this picture I have painted, although a bit abstract, will help to enhance your understanding of the split within liberalism, and that while there are sharp, oft-times vicious disagreements within the two camps, it must be noted that both strains are wholly committed to the betterment of society through the promotion and defense of the individual. With that being said, new liberalism (or left-wing liberalism) more often than not tends to drift towards socialism, and if not for the constant tug from the liberal right (libertarians and fiscal conservatives), then the temptation to nationalize industry, commerce, and public and private life would probably be much too great.

Below are some excerpts of a biological anthropologist's political viewpoints, and although at first I wished to dismiss them due to the lack of coherence or the ability to appeal to reason or logic rather than Party doctrine, I feel as though I have a duty, as an informed citizen, as an individual, and as a family member (Yes! Its Aunt Chelsea!) to engage in a civil - but lively! - debate on the issues she has raised in her blog post.

It must be noted that I don't expect to change my Aunt's mind here (indeed, I doubt if she will ever read it), and I only hope to provide some insight for those of you who may be curious about libertarian philosophy, and provide some examples of how to best refute the illogical passions of Party adherents. The most important thing to keep in mind while reading this, though, is that I appeal to ideas, to concepts, to logic, and (perhaps most importantly) to facts. My opponent appeals to the doctrine of a Party. The following exchange will be an ideological contest within liberalism. Socialism is dying. Conservatism is malleable and cowardly in its convictions. Liberalism is the future of the West for the next 50 or 60 years, this I am sure. Through the struggle between these two strains of political philosophy, our children and our grandchildren will be much better off than we are today.

On to the debate! Dr. Strayer's (Ph.D. Anthropology, Boston University) remarks will be in italics and indented, and my remarks will follow the normal text and font. This will be a continuing dialogue, as my aunt has quite a few things to say politically, and I will have to take a lot of time to refute each of her notions specifically. I hope to contribute, in some form or another, to the ideas of democracy, of individualism, and of freedom through this debate.

1. Please please please someone explain to me how it is okay to preach about 9/11 to get into an unnecessary war (with a country that had nothing to do with 9/11), but to filibuster the bill that would give 9/11 responders health care for the deadly diseases caused by their selfless service on that day and the many days that followed.

This, your first argument, has too many logical fallacies to even merit an answer. Nevertheless, I will pick one of the logical fallacies (maybe two) in this argument and explain to you how they are illogical and what you need to do to change your argumentation so that it gains a semblance of coherence.

The first segment of your argument here is a textbook case of a straw man, where one deliberately frames an opponent's position in a dishonest way and then proceeds to burn the straw man to the ground with supposed superior reasoning skills. That I largely agree with you about the unnecessary invasion of Iraq is beside the point in your first line of attack, as you have deliberately painted your opponent's side in a dishonest way. Let's take a look at what you said:

"Please please please someone explain to me how it is okay to preach about 9/11 to get into an unnecessary war (with a country that had nothing to do with 9/11)"

At this point in your argument you have not proved that A) anyone has preached about 9/11 to go to war, or that B) the war in Iraq was unnecessary, and C) that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Given that all three of these claims you have made can be contended, the logical conclusion to be reached here is that you deliberately set up your opponent's position in a way that can easily be refuted by yourself, as you were so apt to do to your friend's contention in the comments section of your post. Straw man arguments may get you points within the Party hierarchy, but such a weak line of attack makes your contentions on political matters all the more feeble to those of us who are willing to consider any argument for the good of society and ponder its perceived merits and flaws.

To add insult to injury, you have introduced an elephant-sized red herring into the debate (so soon!), largely, I would wager, in an attempt to put your opponents on the defensive. The propaganda involved in swaying the American public into going to war in Iraq, the necessity or lack thereof of invading the state, and the connection between Iraq and the 9/11 terrorist attacks have absolutely NOTHING to do with the debate over the health of individuals involved in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. The unfounded implications mentioned in the first line of your first argument are therefore distractive from your real purpose of attempting to portray your opponents as hypocritical. Yikes!

The straw man argument and the red herring are only two logical fallacies in this first argument you put forth. There are many, many more.

Whew! I need a break.

Again, I don't expect to change Dr. Strayer's mind with this brief, but thorough, rebuttal of her first argument, but I would again like to ask those of you who have read my critique of Chelsea's argument to think about why her first argument possesses so many logical fallacies. And if you try and answer this question with something like: "its because she is a closet socialist", or "because these are typical liberal lies", you would in turn be committing a wide variety of logical fallacies as well.

I'm going to give you a hint as to why there are so many fallacies, and it has to do with the difference between political ideology and Party ideology.

You can continue to follow my critiques of Chelsea's political rants here, in Part 2

Of Weather, Bounty Hunters, Old Grudges, and Women

2011-01-14T00:02:00.000-08:00

Hey, check out what the weather is like in Vladivostok, Russia! Why am I so weird? I wonder what the world's weather patterns will look like in twenty or thirty years time? I don't doubt that the climate is changing, but I hardly think that the changes will necessarily be a bad thing either. I mean, how do we know that climate change, if it is at all significant for human populations, won't be a huge boon to us?

Check out this cool read on bounty hunters and the American system of criminal law. Part of the reason that the American Republic was once considered the beacon of light for freedom in an otherwise dark world is because of our distinct legal traditions and practices. Its a good thing that the Democrats in Congress and the White House repealed the PATRIOT Act passed by the Republicans in Congress and the White House, huh?

The Christian Serbs massacred lots of Albanian Muslims, and vice versa. They have been doing it to each other for centuries. The European Union, the Ottoman Empire, the Russian Empire, the Austro-Hungarian Empire, and, to a lesser extent, the United States (through NATO) have all failed in their attempts to "bring peace" to region (I put 'bring peace' in quotation marks because I don't believe for one minute that any of these powers invaded, bombed, or subjugated the peoples of the Balkans for purposes of benevolence).

In fact, the only time that the region was brought relative peace and stability was under the Tito regime, a communist-tinged dictatorship that refused to tow the Soviet line while simultaneously refusing to bow to the pressures of Western influence.

I distinctly remember my wanderings in Slovenia back in 2004, and my encounter with a homeless drunkard by the name of Igor (I can't make this kind of stuff up!). He spoke perfect English (think Vlade Divac), and revealed to me that he was an ethnic Croatian. He told me that he had been beaten - nearly to death - several times over the past couple of years, and that it had nothing to do with his alcoholism (mostly because the stereotype we think of when we think of Slavs is...well, a bit justified). I remember the scars on his face as if I had just seen them yesterday.

Most of them were around his eyes, which suggested that he had indeed been beaten to a pulp rather than have been scarred my his own drunken mishaps.

He lamented the fact that Tito was gone, and that Yugoslavia had fractured into smaller ethnic enclaves. When Tito governed, the drunk mused, there was no such thing as a Croatian, or a Slovene, or a Macedonian, or an Albanian, or a Serbian. There were only Yugoslavians.

Does this mean that dictatorship can be a good thing?

I doubt it, as the fact that Yugoslavia split up into different ethnic enclaves so quickly after Tito's death suggests to me that the only thing that really held Yugoslavia together was fear. That the Croatian drunkard of Ljubljana espoused the benevolence of Tito only serves to buttress the argument that the socialist system promotes the degradation of society in unforeseen ways.

Yet Tito's dictatorship is the only regime that has been able to bring peace and stability (but not prosperity) to the Balkans. It will be interesting to see what happens in the Balkans over the next twenty years, as I think the region is still very much the traditional powder keg it has always been.

I have noticed that my sister and my mother don't read my blog as often as they did a while back. I think is probably because they can see that I am moving on with life in a positive and fairly normal fashion, so they don't have cause to worry anymore. In fact, I think that the only person who reads my blog on a daily basis is my grandmother, which is kinda cool if you think about it. Someday I hope to be able to keep tabs on all of my grandchildren the way she does. With this being said, I am very, very grateful that my mother and sister were there for me during such a difficult time in my life. I have only been stabbed in the back by people I care about twice in my life, and the first time left some terrible scars on my heart and in my head. Without their constant support, I probably would have withdrawn into a deep state of depression, and began to self-destruct again.

I love you guys, and I know that I am still a piece of shit to you guys sometimes, but you're stuck with me, so thanks for soldiering on. Love.

Oh, and do you think I should take an Honors course on Ancient Art History this Spring? I want input from my loyal readers!

A Silly Lesson Learned (And A Not-So-Intimate Portrait Into Democracy)

2011-01-12T17:47:00.000-08:00

Yes, I had the entire day off today. I went to the gym, and all of my homework got done yesterday, so I have been lounging about, taking short walks downtown and through mid-town, and generally enjoying the beautiful weather that we have had today. Santa Cruz is the crown jewel of the Republic. I was also able to do a bit of reading too, and this is what I came up with for today:

There is a recognition among philosophers throughout the ages that their minds are a bit more keen than those of their fellow human beings when it comes to certain things. This does not mean that philosophers are smarter or wiser than their fellow man in all things, but only that they are able to perceive how and why societies function in the ways that they do, and that when it comes to matters of utmost importance - like the affairs of governance, philosophers tend to be a cut above the rest.

My recent exchanges with Dr. Jacques Delacroix have been exhilarating, as we are both on a the same plane when it comes to affairs of politics and society, despite our disagreements. However, those of us who able to formulate arguments using logic are sometimes sucked into the peripheries of individuals comprising the vulgar mob. That is, sometimes we engage in a debate with our fellow citizens hoping to be able to teach the fellow a thing or two about the issue at hand, but instead end up feebly trying to explain to the fellow that his (or her) argument is illogical, and has no coherence whatsoever. The following exchange with a fellow named 'Mila' is a case in point:

Over at Eunomia, a blog sponsored by The American Conservative, Dr. Daniel Larison (Ph.D. History, University of Chicago) posted the following:

The AU is rightly becoming more flexible. It recognises Sudan as exceptional. Its break-up does not threaten the rest of Africa. ~The Economist

This is always very easy for others with nothing at stake to say. Sudan’s break-up doesn’t threaten the rest of Africa until it provides the precedent in other countries for similar independence movements. Kosovo was supposed to be exceptional, too, until recognition of its independence more or less directly led to the effective partition of Georgia. When the U.S. and other states recognized Kosovo, few believed that it could have an effect on South Ossetia and Abkhazia, but it did. How many countries will suffer from greater instability because self-determination prevailed in Sudan?

Once major powers start re-drawing borders to satisfy the demands of self-determination or other concerns, there is no obvious place to stop. Kosovo’s example isn’t supposed to have any effect on the situation in Karabakh, either, but why are the people in Karabakh and Armenia bound by this Western assumption? Supporters of the secession of South Sudan have to take into account the possibility that the success of the southern Sudanese in achieving independence will encourage other separatist and automomist movements in Africa and elsewhere. In many ways, African nation-states are among the most arbitrary, artificial creations in the entire world, but that doesn’t mean that splitting them up into equally artificial, less viable statelets will make things any better. Kosovo’s separation from Serbia and eventual independence empowered a gang of criminals. Is there much reason to hope for better in South Sudan?

In short, Dr. Larison is worried about the precedence that Sudanese secession will set around the world. I responded to Dr. Larison's blog post with this:

Dr. Larison:

I always enjoy reading your blogs, and I hope that you (and TAC) will be around for the long haul.

I think that there is one glaring omission from your analysis of Sudanese secession, though: Russia. In each of the states and regions that you use to harbor doubts in the minds of others about South Sudan, there is the distinct presence of Russian influence there. Kosovo, Serbia, Georgia, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Karabakh, and Armenia have all, at one time or another, come under the direct influence of Moscow for extended periods of time, and therefore are considered by Moscow, rightly or wrongly, to still be on the periphery of Russian influence.

And I don’t think that major powers are redrawing the borders in Africa, either. Rather, I’d say that some powers have begun to consider alternatives to the current power structure in Africa, and that secession is one of those alternatives. I can see how you would draw such a conclusion, though, because of the nature of Brussels’ and Washington’s course of action against the Bashir regime. However, I would argue that the heavy-handed tactics of the West towards Khartoum has more to do with a sense of guilt towards sub-Saharan Africa rather than stalwart attempts at once again redrawing political borders in the region.

And I think we should be looking at this change of policy by the West towards sub-Saharan Africa as an encouraging sign that we are willing to look at other alternatives and (Lord have mercy!) recognize that Africans should be able to choose how their societies are governed. The recognition of the newest state in Africa by the West is, all in all, a wonderful thing, I think. I mean, just look at how our attempts to keep Somalia together turned out.

Your point about the gang of thieves is well-taken. However, I don’t think that the West was fully able to engage in the newly-minted state of Kosovo because of the Russian factor. In South Sudan there will be a variety of factors at play, of course, but there appears to be much more room, so to speak, for promoting trade there.

That South Sudan may prove to be a beacon for secessionist and autonomist movements elsewhere in Africa is almost guaranteed, but who is to say that this is a bad thing? I don’t have any statistical data on hand, but I am pretty sure that interstate wars in Africa happen much less often than do intrastate wars. In any case, why not let the Africans experiment in government?

Dr. Larison (he has probably already learned the lesson that I just did) has not taken the time to respond to my musings. Instead, what I got was this:

So, what is crackshot crackpot [I don't use my real name in online posts - b.c.] trying to tell us with this comment, “… there is the distinct presence of Russian influence there. Kosovo, Serbia, Georgia, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Karabakh, and Armenia have all, at one time or another, come under the direct influence of Moscow for extended periods of time …” ? ‘Russian presence in Kosovo’??? Looks like too few know it is the ‘presence and influence’ of USA-NATO that has really messed up Kosovo. Let it not be forgotten that in 1999 the sovereign country of Serbia was bombed mercilessly for 78 days, totally on phony pretexts, solely for the purpose of USA-NATO installing yet one more huge military base, Camp Bondsteel, on foreign occupied territory. In the process, USA-NATO have been propping up a criminal entity in Kosovo. People, do your own research to get to the truth. It’s not about Russian meddling in the Balkans, it’s all about the US penchant for meddling everywhere on the planet. Better that USA pay more attention to its own backyard, which is in desperate need of more TLC.

Wow. Is it just me, or does this comment have no relevance at all to the issue raised by Dr. Larison and the response that I had for him? However, I view all forms of debate, even online ones, as a legitimate form of democracy, and one that is of the utmost importance to the overall well-being of the world (and I am an arrogant bastard who does not tolerate fools very well). So I took the time to respond with this:

Mila:

Thanks for your enlightening response.

I think, though, that your diatribe against NATO and the United States helps to enhance my argument, rather than embarrass it.

My initial reaction to Dr. Larison’s blog was that a common theme ran through the his examples of secessionist movements gone awry: Russia, right?

More implicit in my argument was the point that these regions on the Russian periphery are so prone to violence because there is a contest for influence here between Russia and the West.

While in South Sudan (and Africa more broadly) the secessionist argument is one based on self-government and (dare-I-say) decolonization rather than geopolitics and entangling alliances.

With that being said, I can see how you may have misconstrued my argument here, and I will try to make my arguments less convoluted in the future.

Peace!

I know that the three of you can detect my sarcasm right off the bat, but my newfound friend (thankfully) does not. Unfortunately, he does not seem to grasp the concept of debate, or that of logic, at this point in his life. He issues the following response:

Crackpot, what is your obsession with Russia? I enhanced your argument? What argument? You know well that NATO was at loose ends afte the end of the cold war. So, instead of being on the defence, NATO decided it could get some trackage by going on the offensive. Of course, the phony pretexts were contrived between NATO and USA, not all that unlike the phony pretexts for USA’s attack on Iraq in 2003. You’ll have to do much better than what you’ve thrown out here. Yes, peace. But, let’s work to get to the truth. A lot is hidden because of those who must have their Camp Bondsteel in the Balkans. How many US world military bases so far? Better that USA take care of it’s own backyard.

Again, I answered my friend's response, largely out of hope that I could somehow change his mind, or at least teach him something new. What do you think the odds are that I have succeeded? My response:

Mila:

Thanks again for the cordial response. I am going to answer your rebuttals as best I can, and hopefully be able to elucidate my argument a bit more carefully.

“what is your obsession with Russia?”

I did not realize that I had an obsession with Russia. Perhaps we can get to the bottom of this misunderstanding a little later on this debate.

“I enhanced your argument? What argument?”

Um, the argument that the regions on the Russian periphery are so prone to violence because there is a contest for influence here between Russia and the West, and that secessionist and autonomist movements on the African continent deserve a different analytical lens.

“So, instead of being on the defence, NATO decided it could get some trackage by going on the offensive. Of course, the phony pretexts were contrived between NATO and USA, not all that unlike the phony pretexts for USA’s attack on Iraq in 2003.”

Yes, I concur, but this statement only bolsters my argument that secessionist and autonomist movements along the Russian periphery are more prone to violence because there is a contest for influence between the West and Russia in these regions.

“You’ll have to do much better than what you’ve thrown out here.”

Am I missing something?

“Yes, peace. But, let’s work to get to the truth. A lot is hidden because of those who must have their Camp Bondsteel in the Balkans. How many US world military bases so far? Better that USA take care of it’s own backyard.”

Huh? I do not see how any of this relevant to Dr. Larison’s post or the debate at hand. I thought we were talking about secessionist movements in Africa and their relation to the secessionist movements in other parts of the world (specifically regions on the Russian periphery). Alas…

So far, so good, right? Does my argument not make sense? Is it not clear? My friend responds with this:

Crackpot, you’re talking in circles, not saying much of anything worthwhile. I mentioned Kosovo and USA’s Camp Bondsteel because it is very relevant to what still goes on in that region. By the way, Mr. Larison made reference to Kosovo. FYI, USA-NATO now hang on to Kosovo, simply because they needed another military base. It was nothing to do with humanitarianism, only USA’s global aims gone terribly awry. Pay attention to what’s in the news. Do a search on the internet. Learn that it’s not about Russia, or its spheres of influence. It’s no longer the Soviet Union. Yes, we’re talking about secessionist movements, because those movements now have an argument, i.e. if Kosovo was permitted to secede, so can we. And, as we know, Kosovo was torn away from Serbia by an illegal war. And, that war was all about gaining one more military base for USA. Don’t you think that USA is not paying enough attention to its own turf, knowing all that is going on within/on its own borders? The Fathers of Confederation must be turning in their graves.

At this point I was reminded of myself as a young man, and I have begun to think that my friend 'Mila' is just that. In fact, up until fairly recently (like in late 2009), I would argue that my tone regarding politics was largely the same. It is obvious that education has helped to sharpen to mind and my thinking skills, and I am not even out of community college yet! I attempted to end the conservation this way (which was a big mistake):

Haha! Thanks for the pointers, Mila, and for the, um, “debate” as well…

Needless to say, I got an equally snarky response back:

Crackpot, pls. know that this is not a ‘ha,ha’ matter. You’re the one who said that Russia has some sort of influence in Kosovo. Those who know the facts, know that Turkey, Albania and even Saudi Arabia have had a whole lot of influence in Kosovo since 1999, and continue to have. You are typical of those who are afraid of the truth, but you sniff around the peripheries, hoping that no one intelligent is around to take you on.

FYI, you have much to learn if you want to be a debater. My main advice to you is to get informed. Then we can debate. Good night.

Ouch! Now, you all of you know me well enough to know that I simply cannot turn down a challenge like the one just issued, so I have responded with the following post:

Mila (isn’t that a girl’s name, or is it just the name of a particular ethnic group that I am unfamiliar with as an American citizen?):

Your comments have been getting less and less cordial, and, as result, less and less coherent. Nevertheless, I think enough of you and your arguments to step into the ring that you have created – wholly outside of the framework of the original debate at hand, I might add – and explain to you my line of reasoning.

Keep in mind that it was not I who was “talking in circles”, but rather it was I who attempted to stick to the issues at hand, like a rock in stream, and avoid getting carried away by the whims of the fickle current. Alas…

“You’re the one who said that Russia has some sort of influence in Kosovo.”

Yes I did say this, largely because it is a fact. The idea that Moscow has no influence and no motives in the Balkans, especially in Serbia, is absurd, and simply does not deserve any credible recognition. Mila, of all the major states in the world, which one has led the charge to officially shun the declaration of independence issued by the parliament of Kosovo? Washington? Brussels, perhaps? The fact that Russia can do next to nothing about the situation (except issue diplomatic protests) is hardly relevant to your assertion that Russia does not have some sort of influence on the Kosovo debacle, either currently or historically.

“Those who know the facts, know that Turkey, Albania and even Saudi Arabia have had a whole lot of influence in Kosovo since 1999, and continue to have.”

I don’t remember ever stating otherwise. That Ankara and Tirane have attempted to influence the outcome of the Kosovo debacle is not in doubt, and I again ask where (or if) you believe that I asserted such preposterous claims. Both states have significant ties to Kosovo, and Turkey especially seems apt to regain its status as a regional player.

There is no reason to suspect that Saudi Arabia has an influence on the issue of Kosovo separatism, though. This is an absurd assumption, and one that I think is based on the idea that because Kosovo is largely Muslim, that Riyadh must, by implication, be taking part in any schemes to European-ize the Balkans.

The Saudi regime has much more on its foreign policy plate (like Iraq, Iran, and the Palestinian issue) than European affairs of state. At best you could say the Saudis are aligning themselves with the West as part of a protest to Russia’s current involvement with Tehran, but the fact that Riyadh has recognized Kosovar independence hardly suggests that they have a significant amount of influence in the Balkan region, especially in relation to Russian influence. That’s absurd.

“You are typical of those who are afraid of the truth, but you sniff around the peripheries, hoping that no one intelligent is around to take you on.”

I don’t doubt that you an intelligent human being (I don’t know yet if you are a man or a woman), but I am apt to remark that in politics one man’s (or woman’s) truth is another man’s (or woman’s) lie. By “sniffing around the peripheries” (am I a dog? an animal?), as you say, I am merely trying to paint an overall picture of the general situation at hand. First, in the context of comparative secession movements in Africa and the Russian sphere of influence, and now, at your insistence, in the context of Russian influence in the areas traditionally under Russian influence.

FYI, you have much to learn if you want to be a debater. My main advice to you is to get informed. Then we can debate. Good night.

Thanks for the kind encouragement. I know that I am not much of a debater, but I do try and support my assertions with facts and logical reasoning. Those assertions that do not stand the scrutiny of these two criteria are usually tossed aside in favor of more sound reasoning and explanations. I will work on my technique in the future, as it is obvious I have much to learn. Good night my friend.

Perhaps my attempts at instilling some logic in my sparring partner will fail miserably (and I suspect so, given his bellicose nationalistic-tinged diatribes thus far), but, for better or worse, this is democracy, and I am happy to be doing the "fine-stitching", as Dr. Delacroix has put it. To further complicate matters, Blackbird has now joined the fray:

Crackpot, Mila seems to have shown a lot of restraint with you, especially in view of how you repeatedly accuse her in that sarky, passive-aggressive way of not debating you when you are not actually offering a debate. Mr. Larison’s premise correctly presents Kosovo as affecting secessionist movements the world over. To further complicate things, Kosovo’s birth after the 1999 NATO bombing as a pseudo-independent narco-mafia state was based on deliberate falsehoods from the outset. i really don’t have the energy, nor much interest anymore, to try to educate those who have merely taken the easy road in world affairs of swallowing the media rubbish, as dictated by their agenda-oriented governments, so, for the moment, the best I am prepared to do is leave you with well-written and lucid information from somebody else, namely Diana Johnstone. Mila is right, you have a lot to learn before you try to debate anything about Kosovo. The standard rhetoric and demonization has already been blown out of the water by Mr. Marty, a completely neutral party, so I would appreciate none of the usual dripping drivel from the likes of Maximillian and hope that you might gain some insight to further your “debates” here

Another vicious blow! My, these Serbians know how to throw a punch, that's for sure! I respond in kind:

Blackbird:

Thanks for acknowledging my presence. If you don’t mind, I’d like to offer a defense of my postings, and a critique of the one you just aimed at me.

“Mila seems to have shown a lot of restraint with you, especially in view of how you repeatedly accuse her in that sarky, passive-aggressive way of not debating you when you are not actually offering a debate.”

I appreciate Mila’s restraint, especially in regards to the debate at hand. God forbid that she (I guess that she is a woman after all) present some facts, some well-reasoned arguments based on those said facts, and some sound critiques of my postings based, again, on some facts. If she were to do that, I don’t think that I could bear to present myself on this blog again! I would be too embarrassed!

In regards to the accusation that I have not offered a debate (this seems to be a common theme running in this dialogue; perhaps I should not post such convoluted writings), I would point you in the direction of some earlier posts of mine, and remind you that the debate at hand is on comparative secession movements in sub-Saharan Africa and the Russian periphery. Why has this been so hard to grasp? Is my writing not clear enough?

That you bring up the subject of Kosovo and secession in your next line of argument suggests that you know quite well that there is a debate at hand, albeit in a different form from the one that Mila and I were originally debating in.

Since neither Mila nor yourself has brought up a credible counter-argument to mine that the secessionist movements mentioned by Dr. Larison along the Russian periphery are much different than the secessionist movements in Africa, do you think it is fair to cede this point to me? If we were to do so, I think that such a move would enable us to move along to the next segment of this debate, which has taken on the form of Kosovar independence, NATO, Russia, Serbia, and the like, no?

“Mr. Larison’s premise correctly presents Kosovo as affecting secessionist movements the world over.”

Yes, but, as I stressed earlier: secessionist and autonomist movements along the Russian periphery are more prone to violence because there is a contest for influence between the West and Russia in these regions. I gave Mila a pass on the issue of misconstruing my point here, but I think that the time to amply explain my position here is now. I don’t see how this statement implicates Russia, or Serbia, or NATO, or the United States, or any other regional player (to say nothing of the least of Saudi Arabia!) as the sole aggressor in the Balkans.

There is a HUGE leap that both you and Mila have made between my point that Russian influence plays a factor in the secessionist movements mentioned by Dr. Larison and the inevitable secessionist movements in sub-Saharan Africa and the assertion that I have pinned the blame on Serbia or Russia for the violence in the Balkans.

Although illogical, I understand the nature of this tactic that you have chosen, I think, as neither you nor Mila care all that much about secessionist movements in general and are much more interested in centering a debate around the issue of Kosovo, no? I’m not totally sure about your motives, so let’s see where your next line of reasoning takes us.

Ah! Here we go:

“To further complicate things, Kosovo’s birth after the 1999 NATO bombing as a pseudo-independent narco-mafia state was based on deliberate falsehoods from the outset.”

I see. I think that the issue here between you, Mila, and I is one of misunderstanding, Blackbird. After all, where in my posts do you see me accusing Russia or Serbia of committing genocide, or of mass-murdering Muslims, or of scheming to control the world through nefarious means?

You don’t, and I have tried to assert that the debate at hand is about comparative secession movements, not Kosovo. Yet you and Mila keep coming back (dare I say circularly?) to this issue, which is fine, but it has absolutely NO logical connection to the debate at hand (which is fine, too, because this is an internet forum, not a debate club).

Now that the two of you hopefully have some idea of where I’m coming from, the accusations that I don’t know what I’m talking about, or don’t know the facts, or don’t know the truth, or support American hegemony, or support NATO expansion and bombing expeditions, or that I am a fool who believes unquestioningly the standard line espoused by Washington’s press corps on the issue of Kosovo, will cease.

I think that this is fair, no?

If you can accept the premises that I have laid out before you, then I would like to move past the debate (provided you acknowledge that I won it) and begin to listen to your side of the current conflict in the Balkans. Until then, though, I don’t think it is possible to move forward with a better understanding of the world around us.

Am I not a ruthless bastard when it comes to debating? :)

Guns, Secession, and Teacher's Unions

2011-01-12T13:30:00.000-08:00

Holy crap! I picked an awfully bad time to deactivate my Facebook account, that's for sure. (I am addicted to it - I cannot help it! - but it will not be reactivated until I am guaranteed a spot in a world-class university; I don't want any bureaucrats poking around my musings, you know what I mean?)

The guns thing is awful. This happens every time some nut job goes on a killing spree. Normally in politics you can look at an argument at the political level and see where both sides have good points and both sides have bad points. The gun argument is not one of these issues.

Every time something like this happens, the Left paints the Right as barbarous and stupid, while simultaneously attempting to abolish the right to self-defense and the right to a free and open government through draconian security measures. These are fairly typical, though, and on different points the Right does the same thing as the Left (think about the Bush administration).

However, look at what happened after the public gave up a little bit of liberty for a little bit of (perceived) security during the Bush administration. It would be wiser to let this pass, let the criminal justice system work, and move on without doing anything drastic or foolish that may end up curbing our civil liberties any further.

The secession of South Sudan is VERY exciting to someone like me, as you can imagine. The idea that self-government for Africans is entering into the discourse of the Western security apparatus is great, and although there is a lot of fears from some about the possibility of South Sudan's secession spurring other secessionist movements on the continent, I don't think that this is necessarily a bad thing.

I've brought this up before, but if you look at the political maps of Europe, you can see that the states have a loose alignment based around ethnic make-up. This is not to say that nation-states are the best possible form of political organization, only that I believe that they are an important stepping stone in a more individualistic (and, hence, freer) world. The current nation-states of Western Europe were around during World Wars I and II, but that didn't stop the continent's people from attempting to exterminate and/or subjugate each other.

I think that the nation-state is a great for establishing a base of operations for governments, but that something along the lines of a transnational structure (like the European Union) needs to be implemented. This structure should be based solely on ironing out the kinks of things like trade and diplomacy between states, but nothing more. This kind of arrangement not only contributes to more interaction between peoples of different ethnicities, but it also leads to more regional autonomy within nation-states as well. For instance, some factions within Catalonia, a region in Spain, have been clamoring for independence for centuries, but their demands have been met with anything but compliance. Recently, though, the Spanish government has been willing to grant concessions to Catalonia in regards to more regional autonomy in political matters, and a lot of this has to do with Madrid's membership in the EU trading bloc.

With this being said, Africa is not Europe, and it must be noted that the European experience at arriving upon their current, relatively prosperous state of being has been bloody, to say the least.

I think, though, that a big difference between the European experience and the African one is that we now live in a much smaller world, and there is much more that can be accomplished diplomatically and economically than was possible when the Europeans (and the East Asians for that matter) savagely tore themselves apart.

A good way for the West to promote peaceful secessionist and autonomous movements within Africa, while being careful not cross the boundary of forcing an issue that is the domain of African domestic politics, is one where we simply recognize the declarations of independence of regions that attempt to form their own states. Enacting formal recognition of these states and following up with some low-level trade agreements is something that I can find no traces of imperialism in. Instead what I see in such a policy are many instances of honest friendship and a recognition of brotherhood between the West and Africa. In the American case, I think such a policy would also show a that we do share common bonds based not only on a common humanity, but also a common history as far as clashing with imperial powers go.

In this age of influence, I think that this may be a huge boon for us.

I also think that promoting regional trading blocs like that of the EU (and, to a lesser extent, like our own Republic) is something that our foreign corps could engage in, albeit in a way that reflects encouraging suggestions rather than forceful imposition.

Some people have raised the issue that smaller states in Africa won't necessarily mean a more prosperous continent, and there may be a point here. After all, the American Republic is massive, and the standards of living here are among the highest in the world. There is also the point made that secession is not always a driving factor behind the violence in Africa, and more often than not factions outside of the political apparatus of African states have been more interested in capturing the political apparatus for their own good rather than attempting to break off. This is, of course, true, but I think that these attempts to seize control of the power structures serve as all the more reason for such states to break up into smaller regions, and therefore stymieing the ambitions of would-be dictators to control huge swathes of territory through the state apparatus.

All of this is negligible, though, if the broader trend of enacting policies of economic self-sufficiency are not brought to a halt and replaced by freer trade throughout the region. Until inter-continental tariffs are dropped significantly, the African continent will continue to be dependent upon the West for export markets, and they will continue to be dependent on the West for ideas and innovation.

All in all, I think that the secession - which is being voted on! - is a good thing for the African continent. Let us hope for the best and do what we can to help usher in a new era through enhanced trading and diplomatic ties.

Back to the domestic front, I have been noticing a trend in the broader political discourse of recognizing the stranglehold that teacher's unions have on the education system (or, perhaps more likely, that what I read is more likely to direct my attention to this particular issue). I have a feeling that some very encouraging policies will be on the table in the future, namely that choice in education will be more carefully looked at, and that teachers will be held responsible for the performance of their students. I just hope that standards are not going to continue to be determined by bureaucrats in Washington and the test scores that they devise. Hopefully, we will have something that allows a diversity of methods to be tried, rather than the current monolith in place that destroys the ingenuity of the human mind.

Woot!

2011-01-11T16:03:00.000-08:00

Okay, so the Political Thought class I am taking in Cupertino is offering an Honors track in the class. I am taking it, which means that I will be much more challenged for the quarter. I have to read three influential thinkers and write reports on their ideas, and then do a presentation for the class on a fourth thinker!

Hell yeah! Combine this with the other class that I am taking at Cabrillo, an Honors course as well, and I will finish out my career as a community college junkie with two Honors-level courses on social affairs.

Pretty cool, huh? *eye roll*

A Plopper For You

2011-01-10T13:17:00.000-08:00

Hey y'all, the New Year is treating me well so far. I hope that it is the same for you, too! Below is an excerpt about my personal life, and is in part a response to one of my loyal blog followers...

I know that I post stuff about my failures and my shortcomings a lot, but I want to stress to you that this is not how I necessarily feel about myself. Rather, I look at my lists of things I don't like about about myself as things that I can change - because I am able to recognize that I have trouble with the said problems.

You know what I mean? I know that I have come a long way over the past 10 years (wow), and I realize that I am going to be able to attend a world-class university on a full ride scholarship because of my talents and my abilities.

I know that I am a well-liked individual who is respected because I give respect, and because I stand up for my beliefs. Now, I may not have that many firm beliefs in my life, but the beliefs that I do have are defended vociferously.

I know that I am a good person overall, as I am able to connect with kids and those who have fallen on hard times in an intricate way. People can trust me with their problems, and that is something that I recognize, and am proud of.

I don't usually talk about this kind of stuff on my blog because nobody really wants to hear someone talk about himself, as if he is some sort of god or something, you know what I mean? Nobody wants to hear about how successful someone is. Nobody wants to hear that kind of crap. That kind of talk isn't conducive to helping others come to some sort of recognition about themselves or the confusing world around them.

I feel as though when I explain my problems, my fears, and my inadequacies publicly that I am helping, in a small and insignificant way, others figure out who they are in turn. Being able to recognize that others - especially people like me who appear to have everything that they desire in life - have fears and self-esteem issues probably helps people to be more confident in their day-to-day affairs.

I know I have a good life ahead of me, but I also realize that I have a lot of issues that I have to work on throughout my life. I think that this in itself is another testament to my positive growth as a human being.

Love!

Libertarian Isolationism: A Debate Continued

2011-01-10T01:59:00.000-08:00

Haha! The bumper sticker is the symbol of the downfall of the West. At Cabrillo College I have seen a few stickers around that are decorated with a sickle and hammer with a phrase next to it saying “sharing is caring”. Only in the People’s Green Socialist Republic of Santa Cruz…

Also, I feel like a ‘thank you’ is in order. I am currently taking a class in Political Thought at De Anza, and it appears to be a waste of time. Despite the name of the class, it is not really about thinking at all, so I am grateful to have a teacher like Dr. Delacroix who is willing to take time out of his life and challenge me to stretch the limits of my reasoning and my worldview.

[update 1/11/11: I have to rebuke my statement that the class is not making me think. I have a bad habit of condemning my classes after the first week, and I have yet to break this deplorable vice. It is obvious judging by the content of the first lecture this week that I will learn a lot in this class.]

On to the debate at hand! Dr. Delacroix's arguments are indented and in italics, and my responses follow.

On the subject of Muslims in France, you just ought to defer to me, I think. I read French newspaper six days a week; I watch French television every day; I am in touch with intelligent French people in France and in North Africa; I go to France fairly often, and I know the language.

The working-class periphery of Paris is seething with resentment, as you say. This is exactly what you would expect in a society where 10% general unemployment has, for thirty years, been the norm, (20% for younger people), and a 1.5% growth rate in the economy is a cause for celebration. Expressions of this resentment are numerous, fairly violent and also ecumenic in who participates. They have never taken an Islamist form. So, France is in the line fire of violent Islamists in spite of its Muslim situation being the reverse of apartheid. In fact, it could be because of this. (The main firing is many kidnappings of French citizens, specifically.)

The Islamist targeting of French citizens and territory may be because of its ability to integrate Muslims so well, but I doubt it. I think that the current terror threat to France has more to do with its occupation of Afghanistan than it does to the successful integration of Muslim citizens. After all, is the terrorist threat to France not relatively new (at least since the end of the Algerian War)? Surely, if the Islamists were so jealous of French success at integration, there would have been earlier threats to France’s existence, no? The past ten years have seen an upsurge in threats not from traditional terrorist groups like Corsican and Basque separatists, but from specifically Islamist organizations, right? You don’t see a correlation between France’s occupation of Afghanistan (and by implication its war against Al Qaeda) and the newfound threats of terror coming from Islamist-tinged terror networks? Alas, coincidences do happen…

You are minimizing a great deal the bellicosity of Muslim Scriptures as if they were just a couple of zits on a beautiful face. The Koran and the Hadiths contain numerous warlike, inciting statements (and not only such, it’s true) against infidels, including permission to put them to death and to enslave them. Want to bet? I defy you to show me anything of the kind in the Gospels or any other part of the New Testament. It’s easy to find calls to jihad in latter and mostly forgotten Christian writings. The Crusades did happen, after all. And that’s part of my point: I understand Islamist aggression because those who have it on their mind are much like my ancestors (and yours) a thousand years ago. It’s a familiar ugly face, not difficult to recognize.

Ah! Here there may have been a misinterpretation of my position due to my terribly convoluted writing. I don’t doubt that Muslim scriptures are warlike or bellicose. Rather, my argument is that most Muslims don’t take such baneful statements and/or passages as seriously as we’d like to think. If you mistook my last blog post as a defense of Muslim religion, the fault is my own for not enunciating my position more clearly. That is, I argue that most Muslims do not (or wish to not) take the Quran all that seriously – unless they are forced to do so by law.

Connection between the role of the state and the role of Islam in a list of Muslim countries: I get your point. The answer is “no direct link” except in Saudi Arabia and formerly in Taliban Afghanistan. The sad truth is that today, the world, including us, seems to have a choice between murderous violent jihadists and modernizing fascist regimes in Muslim countries. That’s a subject worth discussing. Libertarians don’t. Myself, I chose the fascists because they are not as willing to die to kill us. Also fascist systems sometimes become more representative.

Iran claims to have no direct link to Islamic doctrine? I always thought that it was an Islamic Republic, albeit a self-proclaimed one...

And also, I am fairly certain that Saddam Hussein and the Ba’athist Party would fit under your definition of a modernizing fascist regime (if we are to take Hayek’s observation that fascism is merely the next logical step for socialist systems to evolve into seriously). Is it or is it not true that Saddam Hussein’s dictatorship was ardently anti-Islamist, and that a major factor in the Ba’athist war against the newly-minted Islamic Republic of Iran had to do with the fact that the Ba’athists detested Islamist ideology much more so than anything else, even Israel and the United States (indeed, is it also not true that the fascistic Ba’aths sought help from both states for military and intelligence purposes?).

The Ba’athist observation aside, I agree with you here – wholeheartedly. Modernizing fascistic regimes are much better for peace and stability in the post-colonial world. (Quick side note: if we again take Hayek’s analysis of socialism into account, we can kind of trace the evolution of post-colonial states from their socialist/fake-nationalist-inspired revolutions, through the failures of their attempts at central economic planning, to their current attempts at economic “self-sufficiency” and fascistic domestic programs, no? Why not let them keep evolving and see where it takes them?). I have even heard libertarians make the argument that Saddam Hussein would have been a much better option to work with in the Middle East than an Iraq loosely controlled by an Islamist-friendly (and Iranian-friendly) Shia majority and continually bordering on collapse.

I am apt to argue that most of the Muslim world agrees with us as well. So, given that both you and I can see that the Islamic world is much better off with modernizing fascistic regimes, and (more importantly) given that most of the Islamic world probably can see that they are better off with modernizing fascistic regimes (indeed, I think that this sub-point deserves further scrutiny a little later on in my argument), I am forced to conclude that unpopular ideologies like Islamism gain hold over the power structures in these post-colonial states because of three main factors: 1) foreign intervention by major states, and 2) discontent with the fascistic regimes and 3) the perception, rightly or wrongly so, that such fascistic regimes are proxies for the major states.

Despite the negative perceptions harbored by a majority of Muslims in the world towards their fascistic governments in regards to how they deal with the West, we must continue to work with these governments. The only puzzle that we have to solve, though, is how to go about working with the fascistic regimes. Do we continue to give them military assistance, money for domestic programs (to be doled out they see fit), and intelligence and police training? Or do we instead abolish all forms of foreign aid to these states and begin to structure trade deals that will contribute in a long-term and healthy way to the betterment of their societies (and ours)?

In general, I think you are in denial on two broad fronts. Either denial is enough to make your militarily isolationist position untenable, in my humble opinion:
You contend that we provoked violent jihadist attacks because of our military presence in the holy lands of Islam. Ignoring the fact that none of those places, save perhaps Saudi Arabia, are holy, have ever been holy except by Al Qaida pronouncement, you would have to defend the following propositions:

Okay, again, the misunderstanding of my position here is my fault, as my writing is largely incoherent and usually bereft of any clear insight. I did not argue that the United States provoked the two attacks on our soil, only that our military (re: government) occupation of Saudi Arabia – Islamic holy lands – was a major factor in the decision of Al Qaeda to murder 3,000 innocent people through terrorist means. I do not happen to think that disregarding the motives of the Republic’s enemies is a smart move, either. If Al Qaeda said it murdered our people because of our government’s occupation of Islamic holy land, I am inclined to believe the Network on the grounds that such an organization is not involved in a political process, and therefore has no need to lie about its motives for popularity’s sake.

When violent jihadists murder Argentinean Jews in Buenos Aires, it’s because Americans have a military presence in Muslim holy lands;

When violent jihadists murder Iraqi Christians in Iraq, Egyptian Christians in Egypt, and Pakistani Christians in Pakistan, it’s because of American military presence in Muslim holy lands.

When violent jihadists murder other Muslims in Algeria, Iraq, Pakistan, it’s because of American military presence in Muslim holy lands.

Your argument about “minorities” is special pleading and it does not stand the barest scrutiny: Kurds are much more numerous than Sunnis in Iraq; the victims of violent Islamists in Algeria were specifically not ethnic minorities. The slaughtered “minorities” of Pakistan have one thing I common: The are not Sunni Muslims. Could be a coincidence. Do you really think so?

Straw Man alert! Straw Man alert! *smart ass (or dumb, depending on your point of view) smirk* If you are referring to the 1994 terrorist bombing in Buenos Aires, then you would be confusing Islamist-inspired terror networks with state-sponsored terror, as Iran has been publicly accused of sponsoring the terrorism.

My argument about the violence and bloodshed in the post-colonial, Muslim world was obviously not very clear here, either. I thought I had argued that the ongoing violence has more to do with the various factions – politically, ethnically, religiously, and tribally – grappling for power than it does with Islamist movements themselves. That is, Islamist movements in these various regions of the Islamic world are only one faction in a diverse and entangled web of political intrigue and guise, and they are not the only ones who commit acts of violence.

Politically: Again, to say that the fascistic states have played no part in the violence is a bit far-fetched. We have agreed that fascistic states are better than Islamist ones, but this is not to say that fascistic states are much more humane than Islamist states, either. The governments of these post-colonial states are notorious for violating individual rights, and a large number of these governments have gotten lots and lots of money from Washington (via the taxpayer, of course). So the role of the fascistic state has to come into play in the puzzle, as I argued in my previous blog post.

Ethnically: The clearing of Sunni Arabs from Kurdish lands and the rivalry between Pashtuns and the other ethnic groups in Afghanistan are both good examples (in my opinion) of the lack of Islamist influence on violent or menacing movements that are currently in play in the Islamic world. These actions (and others like it) should be proof enough that the bloodshed in the region is not just based on jihadist sentiments.

Religiously: First off, I recognize that most of the moderate clerics in the Islamic world are probably not going to endorse rival religions, but that is just how competition works, I guess, and I don’t see how failing to endorse a rival religion for the accumulation of souls can be condemned. Now, advocating violence against other religious groups is, of course, deplorable, but I think that the position of the hardline clerics is overplayed here. This example is just one of many that hardly, if ever, gets mentioned in the Western press.

Tribally: Oh dear God! Magnify the ethnic tensions in the post-colonial world by one hundred and we have a good idea of the tribal intricacies at play here. Again, as I have argued in my previous post, none of these ancient and oft-times bloody rivalries possesses a significant amount of Islamist influence, and attempting to twist the tribally-inspired violence in a direction that implies Islamist influence is a bit disingenuous, no?

None of this suggests that the presence of the American military is to blame for the violence in each of these specific cases. You have misinterpreted my argument severely (again, this is probably due to my convoluted writing) if you think I place the blame of violence in the Middle East squarely on the shoulders of the U.S. government.

Firstly, the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center in both 1998 and 2001 were linked (however uncomfortably) to the occupation of Islamic holy lands in Saudi Arabia. In my previous post I tried to explain (I obviously did a terrible job) that violent encounters with Islamic societies (and any other society, for that matter) are specific, and require case-by-case studies in each of the encounters. The first two terrorist attacks on the Republic’s soil were caused, in part, by our government’s presence in Saudi Arabia. That our government has left Saudi Arabia does not diminish the fact – especially to our enemies - that our military is now in Iraq and Afghanistan waging what most Muslims consider to be aggressive wars of occupation. This perception of the Republic by a lot of Muslims (even moderate ones) as an aggressive occupier is what has contributed to the suspicion and rancor of Islamic societies towards the United States, not Islamist ideology per se. Again, Islamism is only one factor – and a small one at that! – in the changing discourse of the Islamic world. Do you think that the presence of Western military forces enhances the arguments of the Islamists, or helps to rebuke them?

Secondly, none of this argument is “blaming” American military presence in the Middle East on the other, unrelated cases of Muslim violence that you have cited. Rather, my argument explicitly, if convolutedly, stated that the nature of violence in these post-colonial societies is much more complex than simply jihadists bent on conquering the world one car bomb at a time, and that a foreign military presence does much more harm than good.

Second front: You seem to say that war is futile as a solution to the problem of aggression by others, in general and in particular. If you are not saying or implying this, I stand corrected and then, nothing of what follows applies to what you wrote.

In general, historically war does not solve anything except: British despotism, Barbary Pirates’ exactions, slavery, Fascism, Nazism. and Communism (the later, to a large extent, was solved through the mere the mere threat of war). Yes, I stole most of this from a bumper-sticker.

Even if you were right that fighting violent jihadism militarily were ineffective, I would insist that we do. It’s a matter of dignity and it’s a condition of future safety. You can be sure other evil-doers and potential evil-doers are watching to see what happens when you kill Americans. I want them to think it’s risky, at least.

War, historically, has also been the harbinger of despotism, lawlessness, slavery, Fascism, all sorts of nationalistic-tinged murdering sprees, and communism as well. Free trade, on the other hand, has historically led to peaceful coexistence, mutual understanding, and higher standards of living for all involved.

In the particular: You cast a disdainful look at Iraqi democracy, a pure product of President Bush’s war of choice, and a child of the US and allies’s military invasion. I think you need to do this lest nation-building appears not to be a silly endeavor. Here is what I see:

Iraq has a properly elected government. It results from Iraqi citizens voting in larger percentages than Americans usually do. Sometimes, they do this under threat of death. This democratic government is sure enough of itself to affirm that its protector and genitor, the US armed forces must leave. That is, it’s exactly like any other self-assured sovereign entity. There has been no coup, no attempted coup and the rule of law prevails there better than in most less-developed countries. (Obviously, terrorist actions against that government have nothing to do with my claim that it is applying the rule of law.) With all this, Iraq is not Switzerland. As far as corruption is concerned, it’s more like New Orleans or Illinois. In terms of representativity, it’s probably significantly better than either. All in all, it compares favorably with this Republic in 1785.

Oh dude! I don’t know what strain of marijuana you are smoking (Santa Cruz has so many to choose from!), but I want some of it. It has not even been eight years since the invasion of Iraq, and already you are proclaiming it a liberal democracy? A bastion of light in a dark and voter-free world? I’ll hold off on the rest of this argument until you let me smoke some of your stash, and then maybe I will be able to possess some mystical insights into the golden sunrise that a democratic Iraq is inevitably going to ride through over the next few decades…In the mean time, I’d ask you to explore the evolution of other Arab states in the region like Kuwait and the UAE. They are progressing, slowly but surely, towards a more liberal state of being. Their elections are few and far between, and they’re contested, tainted by corruption, and don’t carry much political power – yet.

In ten years time, however, I think that we will see the trajectory of Iraq turn towards dictatorship again, while in the states that have managed to keep outside influence limited to trade we will see the evolution of stronger, sounder, democratic institutions.

This success in nation-building should not surprise you because it conforms to what always happens when the US wins a war. It happened with Italy, with Germany, with Japan, and by the way, with France to an extent. It half happened with South Korea where we did not really win. It did not happen with Vietnam where we lost. Your sage doubts about whether or not the “Sunni factions” will continue to support democracy in Iraq does not cost you much. And the Republican Party might split into two or three factions, and the rational wing of the Democratic Party might join en masse the Republican Party. And, as the French say so colorfully, “If my aunt had balls, we would call her ‘Uncle’.” You can always hypothesize new catastrophes. It’s a Santa Cruz specialty: If the world does not come to and end in 2012, it will probably come in 2014. (And, here I am, smirking; I could not resist; I am ashamed!)

Haha! I hope that there are no catastrophes ahead for the Iraqi state, I really do. I hope that they can hold peaceful, Western-style elections every two years, properly run the judicial system installed by the American government to smooth out political, legal and economic operations, and engage in rational discourse with their theocratic neighbors on foreign policy issues of the day.

In regards to the success stories of the U.S. government’s attempts at nation-building, I will merely point out that Cuba, the Philippines, and the Indian reservations in the interior of this country can all attest to the failures of nation-building, too. This is not to say that I think that the United States is evil or wicked, but only that the attempts to nation-build after successful wars by Washington have had results that do not fit into the overall picture you have painted of foreign intervention and state-building. And the topic of an official declaration of war by the Congress and how it affects the operations of a war has yet to be broached.

Your faith in the efficacy of clandestine operations, like your faith in high-tech weapons, leaves me non-plussed. Is it possible that we could do everything we need to do without boots on the ground and that our governments (plural) have decided perversely to ignore alternative means?

Ah, good point. I think that we are simply doing too much militarily and not enough economically in the Muslim world. If our goal is to engage in nation-building, in police work, and in realpolitiking, then it is surely impossible to achieve such ends with clandestine shield operations and missile strikes.

I think that your analysis of Islamist power is still a bit overplayed, though. They are bad people, no doubt about it. But they are just another faction competing for the hearts and minds of their people. Blowing those people up has certainly not won many hearts and minds, as the U.S. government should be well aware of, and the tide of social change has been rolling against Islamist ideology for quite some time now. One of the main issues that keeps the Islamists in the political picture, though, is that of foreign military occupations of Muslim states. Without the occupations, the Islamists would not have much to stump on (“enact blaspheme laws NOW!”) in the political arena. The violent factions would still exist, no doubt, but they would be marginalized and be much easier targets for our clandestine and high-tech operations.

However, with this being said, I don’t think I can stress enough the argument that foreign military occupation is what is driving the Islamist-inspired violence against the West. If we were to remove our militaries from the region, and abolish all foreign aid, then I think the threat of Islamist-tinged terrorism would dwindle significantly. Given that Islamic terrorism was never a problem to the United States until after we became involved in the region’s political affairs in the 1940’s and 50’s, and given that most Muslims have not concerned themselves with the affairs of the West (here I am referring to the calls for the end of free speech in Europe) until a few decades ago, I am inclined to support the idea that the military occupation of Islamic lands is what has contributed to the violence against the West since the end of World War 2.

And given all of the social complexities that the Muslim world contains (cultural, religious, tribal, and ethnic), I don’t think that the violence and bloodshed directed toward other members of their societies can be blamed fully on the Islamists. I think that there is too much information that points to a variety of factors at play.

Contrary to your musings in your introduction, you could change my mind or, at least, create a line crack in my conviction, but it would have to be done with logical assertions based on good facts. I think you have not done so. Too many of your facts are putative and too many of your reasonings are tortuous and too gratuitous (though not necessarily illogical). Show me good, direct stuff enough and I will eventually turn around. I will do it publicly. As I said as an opening statement, my position lacks consistency. It’s uncomfortable. The cohabitation of facts and ideology often is.

In the final analysis, whether we persuade each other may not matter much. Others are reading this exchange. Some may be induced to think about those issues, or to think differently. You and I are doing the fine stitching of democracy.

Indeed. Thanks again.

Hooray!

2011-01-07T22:41:00.000-08:00

I get to go back to the homeless shelter tomorrow! The past two Saturdays have been holidays so I haven't been able to go in and "help".

I put "help" in quotations because at this point I know that I am getting waaaay more out of volunteering than the people who I serve lunch to get out of their Saturday afternoons. Is there a phrase or an old saying or whatever that says something along the line of "helping others helps yourself"?

I am pretty sure there is, and I am pretty sure that this a universal principle among mankind. What a beautiful world.

I actually have some more New Years resolutions than just the two that I mentioned earlier.

One: Keep up on my exercise. Getting a gym membership has been one of the best things I have done since moving to Santa Cruz. Not only are there lots of women (actual women, not girls!) who are motivated and confident strutting their stuff, but I am able to work off stress in a very positive and beneficial way.

Two: Get back on my mostly vegetarian diet. I got off track in about September of last year when I went totally broke and could only afford to eat top ramen and canned chili. Its back to fresh fruit, water, and red meat once a week.

Three: Get rid of my Facebook account. I am over it. I just get sick of all the people who are so obsessed about themselves. People don't care about ideas or events or even other people as much as they should. This is not to say that the government should somehow make people care, but only to lament the fact that twenty-somethings (from all parts of the globe) are very selfish and superficial creatures. I will spend the inordinate amount of time that I would normally spend on Facebook actively looking for ways to engage in the community more, as well as getting to know people in my life on a more personal basis.

Four: Date. Oh God! Last year all I did was sleep around, and I am a worse off person because of it. Instead of hooking up with random bar hoes and college bimbos, this year I am going to try and date women - that is, try and get to know women for who they are as individuals. Of all my resolutions, this will be the hardest one, not only because I am a selfish prick, but because women don't necessarily like to be treated well. Then again, the women I have been dealing with over the past year and a half are probably not an exemplary sample of Santa Cruz's overall female population...

Five: Quit posting maps on my blog! Haha! I know this is a stupid one, but I've noticed how much traffic my blog gets since I started posting maps on it. At first I thought the uptick in popularity was because people were reading my political and economic rants, but alas, they were just directed to my blog for the maps that I posted. I don't know if I will follow through on this last one, though, because maps are so cool!

I think that this is plenty for me to work on over the course of the year, but if the three of you have any other suggestions you'd like to add, y'all know where the comments section is! :)

Love

Indigenous Rights and International Law

2011-01-07T12:25:00.000-08:00

I had to write a short paper on indigenous rights in my International Relations class and I thoroughly enjoyed it! The issue I chose to focus on was land and property rights and how the central governments of post-colonial states hinder and disrupt the natural order of the various nationalities trying to govern themselves within the boundaries of the artificial states imposed on them. Enjoy! *eye roll*

Although the issue of indigenous rights are seldom talked about or even known about in the United States, the issue of the sovereignty of native peoples often plays a prominent role in the domestic politics of most states on the planet (whether they like it or not). Former colonial states like Nigeria serve as an optimal example of the complexities surrounding indigenous rights and, on another related level, international law.

In the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (here to after referred to as DRIP) an outline has been set forth that stresses the importance of recognizing the rights of indigenous peoples around the world. The two most convincing cases put forth by DRIP are, I believe,

Recognizing the urgent need to respect and promote the inherent rights of indigenous peoples which derive from their political, economic and social structures and from their cultures, spiritual traditions, histories and philosophies, especially their rights to their lands, territories and resources […]

and

Convinced that control by indigenous peoples over developments affecting them and their lands, territories and resources will enable them to maintain and strengthen their institutions, cultures and traditions, and to promote their development in accordance with their aspirations and needs .

Both of these cases argue convincingly that there is an important, if not dire, need to recognize the rights that indigenous peoples often lack within their states. The issue of indigenous peoples being able to possess the same political, cultural, and property rights as the rest of a state’s citizens can best be explained with the case of the Ogoni, an ethnic group within Nigeria currently being exploited by both the Nigerian state and Shell Oil Company. The massive environmental destruction of their lands by Shell Oil has been hard to stop because the central government of Nigeria is the entity that issues drilling permits on Ogoni land and determines the regulatory structure surrounding oil extraction. The Ogoni have virtually no control over their own lands and property, and as a result, they are exploited by the self-serving interests of the Nigerian state and its corporate benefactors.

A couple of common themes seem to run through DRIP’s operational clauses that I believe are of prominent importance: those of self-determination and institutional and cultural conservation , as well as the issue of land and property . Without sovereignty or citizenship, and without the rights to “control [of] the lands, territories, and resources that they possess by reason of traditional ownership” , then the cultural diversity that indigenous peoples bring to the world will continue to rapidly decline, as will the already desperate material situation that currently afflicts most indigenous groups without the proper access to political and legal outlets of a state. Again, the entire existence of the Ogoni is being threatened, as Shell Oil’s operations have torn up planted crops, pumped dirty soot into the Ogoni’s airspace, destroyed fishing waters with oil spills, and polluted the soil needed to plant crops necessary for survival and trade.

A map of the Gulf of Guinea circa 1600-1800 (not a part of my paper :P)

The state of Nigeria offers a glimpse into the complexities associated with DRIP and the issue of indigenous rights more generally. In response to DRIP, Nigeria’s Ambassador to the United Nations (UN) issued a response that I believe highlights both the most and least convincing objection to DRIP. The Nigerian position states that the idea of indigenous self-determination poses a danger to post-colonial Nigeria because there are so many indigenous groups within the state already, and that further movements toward self-determination may lead to secessionist activity. I argue that the Nigerian state’s position is both the least and most convincing because it is very possible that if the various ethnic groups within Nigeria would pursue self-determination in the form of their own nation-states. This is Nigeria’s best objection, to be sure, but it is also its least because although the “371 tribes of Nigeria exercised their right of self-determination [when] independence [was granted by] Great Britain” , I don’t think that the Nigerian government can legitimately claim to represent the interests of all the ethnic groups within its borders. Thus I argue that this position is also Nigeria’s least convincing because self-determination, collectively and individually, is a fundamental human right that, when oppressed, leads to misery for all.

The responsibility of the Ogoni’s plight rests squarely on the shoulders of the Nigerian government because, unfortunately, the Ogoni land is not controlled by the Ogoni, but rather by the Nigerian state. The plight of the Ogoni does not represent an isolated incident either, but rather the norm in the developing world . Given the dire situational norm throughout the Global South, DRIP and specifically Articles 25-28 have been issued to try and at least raise awareness (and somewhat influence opinion since international law in this regard is toothless) to the ongoing exploitation of indigenous land and property rights by the state and its corporate benefactors. Although developing states are a product of European colonialism, these said states have ultimately failed in their bids to eradicate the lasting legacies of colonial rule by stubbornly resisting the novel concept of self-determination. Yes, Shell Oil helps to fund the Nigerian military, but imagine what would happen if Shell (or any other MNC) attempted to bypass the central government of Nigeria and deal directly with the land-owning Ogoni. So ultimately the solution rests upon the Nigerian elite to promote the idea of self-determination throughout the state as a way to discourage economic and environmental exploitation by multinational corporations.

The argument put forth by the Nigerian government in regards to population diversity and natural resources is a clever one, as it forces the advocate of indigenous land and property rights into arguing against the collective rights of a perceived majority, and by extension the stability and order of the state. Instead of going on the defensive, though, I would push the idea that the actions of the Nigerian government itself have been undertaking an imperialism of their own by failing (or refusing) to recognize the self-determination of its people. After this opening salvo I would pull back a bit and opine that perhaps the best way for Nigeria to enhance its international prestige would be by being the first post-colonial state of the modern era to recognize the self-determination of its people.

Of course, I doubt that this idealistic stand would hold much sway over the Nigerian elite, but without this said idealism, the world would be a much darker place. DRIP also contains a heavy dose of idealism in it, and for that future generations can look forward to an idea that is well worth using as a foundation for a more just and diverse world.

Libertarian Isolationism: A Rebuttal

2011-01-05T19:31:00.000-08:00

I am floating on air. I had recently added Dr. Jacques Delacroix (Ph.D. Sociology, Stanford) as friend on Facebook, as I had come across his insightful writings in the pages of Liberty, a libertarian publication. I was especially amused by his article on UCSC LUG's, and was pleasantly surprised to see that he was a mutual friend of a fellow Santa Cruz libertarian.

He is an immigrant from France, and, as you can see through his writings, he bears much resemblance to another Frenchman who once wandered through our curious and inventive Republic.

A rare breed not only because he immigrated here from France (and loves it), Dr. Delacroix is also, quite curiously, a libertarian hawk. That is, he believes that the United States military can and will effectively run an operation that eliminates the threat of terrorist networks aimed at destroying the Republic.

I was fortunate enough to have piqued his interest one day, and the exchange that ensued led him to reply, quite thoughtfully, to my responses. In other words, I am swimming with the big fish now!

Because Dr. Delacroix is much wiser than I, the burden falls on me to convince him of the error of his thought. It has often been said that the older you get, the less likely you are to change your thoughts or your "ways". I don't expect to change Dr. Delacroix's mind (not because he is "old", either!), but because his mind is still very, very sharp (which is why I am so perplexed at his hawkishness on this issue), I must respond and give the best response that I can.

Below you will find my first argument from the Facebook exchange in italics, followed by Dr. Delacroix's arguments (which will be indented and in bold), and my replies will follow. I hope y'all learn something from this. I know I have.

Speaking of which, I think I am going to take a shot at convincing you of the hopelessness of global interventionism and nation-building as a tool for preventing jihadism. While jihadism is indeed a problem, I don’t think its a global one. I think that perhaps there are some jihadists who believe in resurrecting the Islamic caliphate of old, but even then that old caliphate never reached the shores of the New World.

Your view of the Caliphate does not begin to cover the motives for jihad. Jihadism does not mean “re-conquest” of what was once Muslim but conquest or domination of the whole world. (See the Hamas Charter on this blog).

Ah, but here I think it is pertinent to point out that jihad cannot simply be reduced to a single monolithic entity. Think of all the diversity within the Muslim world, starting with sects: we have Sunnis, Shias, Sufis, Ahmadiyyas, and Ibadis, for starters, and from there we can proceed to delve in to the various sub-sects within each of these distinct forms of Islam. Now let us switch from religious diversity to ethnic and cultural diversity before finally breaking down even these formidable social clusters into individual human beings capable of performing a vast array of possibilities, some of them good, and some of them bad.

Now lets visualize all of the different historical precedents that each Islamic society is currently shaped by: Indonesian ethnicities and Dutch colonial rule, Chechens and the brutal rule of the Russians, Berber tribes and the French state, Uyghurs and Beijing, Sunni and Shia conflicts in Iraq, Ottoman Turks and Arabs in Mesopotamia, etc., etc. The histories of all of these societies involves jihad at one point or another, and every single one of the jihads was debated (sometimes being rejected, sometimes being accepted) rigorously, and every single one of the jihads was issued for distinctly different reasons.

In short, there is a lot of diversity within the Islamic world, and to suggest that jihad means exactly the same thing to every single actor within the Muslim world is a bit far-fetched, even by my Santa Cruzian standards. I mean, the two of us cannot even come up with an agreement on what jihad means, so how can we rationally expect billions of individuals to do the same?

The only acceptable outcomes are conversion or living as dhimmis for Christians and Jews. Pagans – that would include Santa Cruz Buddhists, as well as Hindus – can be slaughtered freely or reduced to slavery under Islamic law. In fact, any Muslims man can seize any “pagan” and make him or her a slave. Female slaves are called “concubines.”The Muslims scriptures thus clearly condone rape. The rational Muslims I know will say, “ That was a long time ago. We would not do it now.” In the meantime, the permission to act in this manner remains on the book. It can be invoked at any time and is. I don’t know for sure but I would bet that there is not a single fatwa condemning any of these outrageous acts. Want to bet?

I haven't made a bet since I lost $100 on the Denver Broncos in 2006. I think that you make a good point in regards to Islamic law, but first I think it is important to suggest that the "rational Muslims" you speak of probably have a good point: namely that a lot of the admittedly crazy shit in the Qur'an is not taken literally by every Muslim in the world. Think of all the weird and humorous stuff that pops up in holy books of the East and West, and of how many people actually take that stuff literally.

Now, I realize that the nature of the Qur'an is a bit more bellicose to other faiths, and that even with moderates preaching tolerance for other religions there are many more hardline clerics preaching a decidedly conservative interpretation of the Qur'an. And I realize that such hate-filled rhetoric has serious repercussions for global peace and prosperity. And I realize that violent Muslim theology has a certain aura about it that lures in young people in on an alarming basis.

I think that this article probably exemplifies your fears and suspicions best. A young man who was employed as a Pakistani politician's bodyguard murdered him after the politician called for an end to blasphemy laws in the state's Punjab region. The young man now has a dedicated following on Facebook.

This now brings me back to Islamic law, and the silver lining in this terribly tragic, and altogether familiar case regarding law and Muslim societies. The silver lining is in the recognition and attempt by the politician to repeal such blasphemy laws where they may exist, and I do not think that reformers within Islamic societies are aiming to eliminate blasphemy laws only.

What I don't think has been mentioned before now in this debate is the role of the state and the role of Islam in these post-colonial societies. Let's go down the list and see if we can find a connection between the state and Islam in any of the terrorist hotbeds of today:
Pakistan? Check.
Saudi Arabia? Check.
Iran? Check.
Afghanistan? Check.
Iraq? Check.
Yemen? Check.

Now, to the extent that Islamic law - as outlined in the Qur'an - is practiced in the Muslim world, where do you think such legal practices pervade society most? In the United Arab Emirates? In Turkey? In Jordan? Morocco perhaps? Or do you think that the strongest strains of Islamic law are practiced in states with an official state religion?

Regardless of the legal systems that are structured in these predominately Muslim, post-colonial states, I think it is safe to say that there are clashes - politically, economically, and culturally - that are going to define how the Islamic world will look into the foreseeable future - just like everywhere else in the world.

So to me the entire notion that all Muslims want to impose, or even willfully live under, Islamic law is again a bit far-fetched. I think we need to be looking at the institutional factors that come into play here, and ask ourselves if our involvement - which is inevitable in this day and age - in the affairs of the Muslim world should consist of nation-building, weapons-selling, and realpolitiking, or if our involvement should be more focused on opening up trade routes, maintaining clandestine operations to keep our citizens safe from zealots (and by clandestine I do NOT mean overthrowing a democratically-elected leader and installing a dictator), and practicing good governance at home.

I think that for the most part jihadism is a regional problem, and one that the Republic is embroiled in only because of the military assistance (and occupation) that we are providing to the corrupt, ruthless, and negligent Saudi regime (and now the Iraqi and Afghani regimes as well – both of which are equally as corrupt and negligent as the Saudi one).

So, why the terrorist attacks on the French?

I wasn't aware of any recent terrorist bombings in France. Do you mean the ones that were undertaken during the Algerian war?

On the Spanish?

I'm pretty sure this had to do with the Spanish state's involvement in the invasion of Iraq.

On Sweden right before Christmas 2010?

All the more reason for leaner and meaner clandestine operations, as I don't see how any of this could have been prevented by occupying an Islamic state militarily. In fact, the Iraqi-born terrorist may have actually been motivated in part by the actions of Western states in regards to his home country. In addition, the terrorist had spent a large part of his life in the welfare states of Europe, and I think that the region's multicultural policies helped to mold the young man's worldview in a way that I will explain a little later on. None of this ought to imply an apology for the fool's attempts to murder innocent human beings, but I don't see how using a large military apparatus to police a significant swath of the globe would have prevented this either.

Why the kidnappings and executions of journalists of all nationalities?

This probably has more to do with the fact that the journalists were working in war zones, and not with Islam in particular. If journalists start disappearing in Turkey or Qatar, then I might pin the blame closer to jihad.

Being as how our beef with the jihadists stems from our occupation of Islamic holy lands, i think it is only logical that we bring our troops home and leave the peoples of the Old World to their own affairs. If this were to happen, the jihadists would either turn inward on themselves (which I suspect is the most likely outcome), on Israel, or on the weak and dying welfare states of Europe.

What “Islamic holy lands?” Is Afghanistan holy? Since when? Are Kurdish and Sunni Iraq holy? Why was Algeria attacked for ten years, with about 100,000 deaths: no American troops there? By the way, no American troops in Saudi Arabia for ten years. When American soldiers were withdrawn from the holy soil of Saudi Arabia, terrorists attacks increased. Al Quaida and its buddies did not say, “Alright, we are all squared away now.” Your good reasoning seems to rely on misinformation.

Ah, at first glimpse my reasoning may appear to rely on misinformation, but on second glance this appears not to be the case. The U.S. military did not withdraw from Saudi Arabia until 2003 - well after the World Trade bombing of 1998 and the September 11th terrorist attacks. Therefore, the facts appear to support my position that the American state's military presence on Islamic holy land played a very significant part in the terrorist attacks on the Republic's soil.

In regards to Afghanistan and Sunni and Kurdish Iraq, I would try and look at the situation from another angle. It would seem as though the majority of the terrorist acts are aimed at rival factions, rather than at non-Muslim targets. While there is violence directed at religious minorities, I would argue that such violence is fairly natural in these types of situations. Think here of the Serbians attacking Muslim Albanians and Bosnians (and the heaping "thanks" we got for stopping the Serbs from inflicting further damage) after the deterioration of Yugoslavia, or the sporadic attacks on ethnic Han merchants in Buddhist Tibet under the rule of the Communist (and Han-dominated) Party of China, or the inter-ethnic violence that pervades much of Africa's post-colonial states. I think that these facts actually help to support my position that there is much, much more to jihad (and violence in Muslim lands in general) than simply the legal systems, social norms, and even religious beliefs of the individuals that comprise these societies.

And terrorist attacks increased when the U.S. military left Saudi Arabia because the said military left FOR Iraq, a neighboring Muslim state that Washington had just decided to invade. I think a better lens with which to look at this situation might be to look at WHERE the terrorist attacks have occurred over the past ten years, and see if we can find a positive correlation between the number of terrorist attacks in a region and the presence of a foreign military power. My train of thought leads me to suggest that we would find quite a bit of causation between foreign military presence and terrorist activity.

Al Qaeda is a terrorist network that is probably going to be best dealt with through clandestine operations, and I don't think that most of the violence currently going on in the Muslim world has much to do with Al Qaeda and has almost everything to do with rival ethnic, religious, clan, state, and economic factions grappling for power in the vacuum that the West has inadvertently triggered through invasion.

As far as Algeria goes, I think that the state only bolsters my claim that there are many factions grappling for power, and I don't think that Algiers was an innocent bystander in the brutal civil war either. I'm sure that the bloodshed was based on remorseless complexities that delve way beyond the simplified label of jihadism. Again, political, economic, and cultural (especially in regards to the kinship structures of the Berbers) factors probably played a much more significant part in the civil war than you give credit to.

The state of Israel is strong enough to handle its own affairs, and I, unlike many of my peers in Santa Cruz, actually support their actions against the likes of Hamas and Hezbollah (though I do recognize Hamas’ election victories and think that the West is shooting itself in the foot by not recognizing them as such). Besides, I don’t think that all of the various factions within the Middle East are worried that much about a liberal democratic state in the region. I think that everyone over there is much more worried about a nuclear Iran than anything else. There are also many tribal rivalries, sub-state rivalries, ethnic rivalries, and religious rivalries that are likely to spring up in the absence of an imperial presence, all of which are much, much older than the relatively new beef with the Israeli state.

Hamas ‘election was one of the cleanest in the Middle East. Let the Gaza Palestinian assume the burden they put on their own backs by electing Hamas fair and square. The states and factions of the Middle East ought to be worried more about Iran than about Israel. It does not mean that they are. It does not mean that they can divest themselves soon of the mental habit of blaming everything on Israel (That includes Egyptian journalists’ blaming shark attacks on tourists in the Red Sea on Israel! -Would I make this up?)

Yes, but given that most of the post-colonial states in the Muslim world are occupied with inter-ethnic, religious, political, and economic rivalries at the moment, as I have repeatedly pointed out, I do not think for a moment that if the West were to suddenly leave the region that the rivalrous factions would suddenly hold hands, sing 'Hallelujah', and proceed to attack Israel in an impressive show of solidarity. The Muslim factions may blame Israel for all of their problems overtly, but I doubt that we would see a unified response from the Muslim world in this regard. And let's not forget that Israel is not stupid, either. I am sure that they would exploit the rivalries and try to play them off on each other as best they could.

And until Europe ends its Apartheid-like “multicultural” policies on immigrants, and ends the rest of its ridiculous domestic social policies, then Europeans will continue to live in fear of their own shadows.

French society is a very good example of integration of Muslims. It’s at the antipodes of what you could legitimately describe as apartheid. French Muslims are in construction, in retail trade, in government, in teaching, in the police and in the Cabinet. It does not stop anything as far as violent jihadists are concerned.

I think perhaps that French society WAS good at integrating its Muslim citizens at one point in time, but that is certainly not the case today. Based on my limited knowledge, I would say that the success of previous generations of Muslims had more to do with rewarding loyal immigrants from recently-lost colonies with legal and social perks, but that gig ended a long time ago. The immigrant neighborhoods of France seethe with anger, frustration, and neglect.

This is part of a larger trend in Western Europe, and as I stated earlier, I think that the blame lies largely at the feet of the "multicultural" polices of European states. Instead of leaving immigrants alone to live their lives as they see fit, and eventually adopt the customs of their new country, the states of Europe have implemented policies that have been designed to "allow" immigrants to keep a large part of their "former" identity. This is a really nice gesture, of course, but I think that the results of such policies can be seen in the faces and the actions of the first wave of immigrants' children and grandchildren. If one is always being reminded that he or she is different - but equal - to his or her peers in society, one is likely to feel more alienated and insecure.

One of the best things the American people could do for Europeans is to get out of the region and let them learn how to defend themselves again (it would also save taxpayers here millions of dollars).

Your perception of the costs of “defending” Europe is probably dated. It’s only true in the sense that we maintain somewhat larger armed forces. We would in any case. Yet, your point is well taken, the Europeans are not doing their share and the Canadian armed forces number fewer than …60,000.

Cool.

How are they ever going to learn how to live again if we don’t let them walk – wobbly knees and all – on their own two feet?

I don’t see how any of this is isolationist. Bringing our troops home would ensure peace from the ravages of Old World affairs, but it would not mean an end of relations with the peoples of the Old World either. Commercial, educational, scientific, religious, and other such relations would continue, and, to top it off, the world would once again have an example of what to emulate when it comes to governing the affairs of their own. And if there was an imminent threat by a terrorist on foreign soil against the Republic, well, that’s what we have satellite technology and laser-guided missiles for.

I don’t know where you get your trust in high-tech defense, I wish to share it

… In any such case, the current occupation of foreign lands has not done much to stem the violent rise of jihadism.

How do you know? ( and how do I know, admittedly? Yet, killing those who have declared they want to kill you and have done so repeatedly seems like a good general policy.)

I don't see how a leaner and meaner clandestine operation couldn't do this job much more effectively - both in terms of costs and in terms of results.

...and I would argue that a position of neutrality towards the region would actually do more to eliminate the threat of jihadism than nation-building exercises.

The causal linkage you make about violent jihad and US occupation of Muslim countries is based on defective facts so, your remedy cannot be credible.

Hopefully I've helped to clarify the facts a bit.

Your faith in military technology is misplaced, I think. (I could make a U-turn on this one.). As a result, you want to defend American society on the Jersey shore and on the beach in La Jolla. That’s defend against both violent jihadism and North Korean and Iranian adventurism. That’s isolationism

If our clandestine operations have sufficient evidence of a terrorist threat that directly affects the health and well-being of the Republic, and has the means to eliminate the threat through a long-range missile strike, I think that it would be appropriate to do so. Anywhere in the world. How is this isolationist? How would that be defending the Republic on the Jersey shore and La Jolla? Again, if our clandestine operations have sufficient evidence of a terrorist threat that directly affects the health and well-being of the Republic, and has the means to eliminate the threat through a long-range missile strike, I think that it would be appropriate to do so. Anywhere in the world.

You still have not proved to me that a vast military (i.e. government) apparatus is needed to police the world in order to ensure that jihad is squelched. All of the reasons you have thus far given me do not seem to justify the necessity of a military presence in Islamic world - even a nuclear-armed Iran.

You have also not proved (to me, anyway) that the current military occupations of Muslim states by Western ones plays little to no role at all in the current affairs of the world. In short, I need some proof that violence against Western targets is not motivated in large part by the military occupations of Muslim states. Violence against rivalrous domestic factions within these post-colonial states is another matter, and one that should cause the Republic even less of a concern.

The concept of an “Old World” may play a strange role in your reasoning. It seems to be the linchpin of your wholesale rejection that I think of as “isolationism.”I believe it’s a completely artificial construction. The UK and Turkmenistan are both parts of your Old World, I would guess. But what do they have in common? The big gap is between societies where fairly legitimate elections take place frequently, accompanied by alternance in power and where the rule of law prevails much of the time, on the one hand, and gangster states, on the other hand. I could draw you a list of the latter easily. Gangster states often turn aggressive because they are mostly unsuccessful. A successful gangster state such as China is less likely to turn violent.

Cool. I actually see the Old World in a different light. I think that social conceptions like ethnicity, tribal identity, nationality, kinship, history, and even religion play a much more significant part of the day-to-day affairs in the lives of individuals in the Old World than it does in the republics of the New.

One last time, dude. I maintain that the best way for the West to interact with the Muslim world is through increased trade, leaner and meaner clandestine operations, and good governance at home. These key tenants will not end violence in the post-colonial world, but I believe that they will end the violence and the threat of foreign terrorist operations on our soil.

I have not addressed your objections to nation-building. (You raise too many good points.)

Aw shucks...

Just a question: How many democratic polities are there in the Mideast now? Who gets the credit (blame?) for the latest?

I don't think that I would count Iraq as a democratic polity in the Middle East just yet. After all, it has been less than ten years since the United States invaded the state, and we have yet to see how the Sunni factions will play along with this. I think that it is also worth noting that one of the first things the democratically-elected parliament did was to establish Islam as the official state religion, something which had been banned under Saddam Hussein.

Now my big question for you is how do you think that the U.S. military apparatus can more effectively deal with terrorism than, say clandestine operations or even through increased commercial exchange?

A Riveting Dialogue (Or, Around the World in 30 Minutes)

2011-01-04T18:33:00.000-08:00

The following exchange of ideas sprang forth after I posted this link from the New York Times on Facebook, which details a harrowing experience of an Islamic woman fighting for individual freedom in war-torn Somalia and here in the United States (I've added the maps to help provide a more pleasurable experience). I introduced the article with the following bait:

Apparently, the Muslim world is far more diverse than some people (aka conservatives and progressives) would like to imagine. It's almost as if the Muslim world is comprised wholly of individuals, and not of a religiously-inspired collective consciousness...

A political map of Somaliland, Puntland, and the territories currently aiming to be Somalia

My friend, a self-described socialist, bit - hook, line and sinker:

Where is this progressive/neocon foreign policy connection you've been referencing lately?

My response:

Fenster, glad to see you back in action!

In his book 'Ghana: A Historical Perspective', Professor J.D. Fage wrote:

[…] between 1919 and 1927, a new [colonial] governor, Sir Gordon Guggisberg […] secured his appointment to the governorship of the colony […] Guggisberg’s programme for the Gold Coast was farseeing and comprehensive: the active development of the economy through the improvement and expansion of its transport system; the improvement of the health of its people by the provision of better medical services; the development of its educational system so that it would produce academically and technically trained men and women of high standard […and] the democratisation of municipal government and of the Legislative Council.

These goals were, of course, pursued through executive orders (rather than through a more democratic legislative process) and carried out with the support of a few thousand British troops that were stationed mostly in the coastal capital of Accra and just outside of Kumasi, the old capital of the powerful, if decadent, Ashanti Empire.

A map of the Ashanti Empire in the late 19th century

Now, with Fage's telling paragraph set amidst the backdrop of these links I have provided below, tell me if you think that the progressive position is not synonymous with the imperial notions of old.

Link 1

Link 2 (be sure to check out the Advisory Board and Board of Directors here)

Link 3

Link 4 (keep in mind that the Marshall Plan was only implemented because of the significant amount of American troops still stationed in Europe)

Link 5

Link 6

Link 7

Hopefully these links will help to explain my position.

Also, have you ever wondered what was up with the 'neo' in neoconservative? I'd suggest the following link to help provide some insights into this label:

Holla back!

My friend's response went like this:

need help drawing any connection with the FP blog post. seems to be an inividual at a think tank discussions domestic problems in afghanistan, and ways to build a broader coalition of native interests there, both for our security and theirs.

nsn: this is a summary of wide opinion--led by democrats at the time, but not limited to them--on where resources for the 'war on terrorism' should have been allocated. is there any question that the focus should have been afghanistan and not iraq? what are you arguing for? complete disengagement with afghanistan, then and/ or now?

from Huff Po: "At its core, President Obama's Tuesday night speech elaborated his plan to end the American military presence in Afghanistan. His chosen path may not end that presence as quickly as many Progressives would prefer, but he was very clear that America will not conduct an open-ended occupation of Afghanistan...Barack Obama understands that Western occupation of a Muslim country ultimately feeds extremism, rather than defeating it."

La Prog/Time, the latter of which I did not read but vaguely remember: this article contradicts itself a lot, but it does raise questions about progressive ideals of broadening human rights. there is a very hard tension for progressives about what to do in regards to human rights abuses abroad. i think that very few progressives would support the sort of 'building democracy with the barrel of a gun' that the neoconservative view held. so the question of how to deal with these abuses is tough. Somalia, Rowanda, Nazi Germany, all provide different reasons one way or the other. I don't think there is a "progressive viewpoint," unified or not, on foreign policy as it relates to doctrine or action.

A provincial map of Italy circa 1920

open soc: those school are run by NGOs. I think that is a very, very happy compromise for people that believe in progress and are passionate about broadening human rights but skeptical of state intervention.

carnegie, also didnt read but skimmed: we made iraq into a mess (by actions that no progressive supported), now we're trying to deal with it. no one knows what the hell to do.

I think your point is that human rights abroad are not something you can change, so it's not your concern. I think that's very different from a position on foreign policy. there are different camps for thought on foreign policy, none of which new deal progressives fall neatly into. we share a concern for human rights broadly. i dont know where this comes from for me, probably from my background as the product of holocaust survivors. nevertheless, it yields no easy answers on when to act, and in what way, and when not to act. as individuals, these questions are not necessarily questions of a state's foreign policy, though sometimes they overlap. but certainly there are moral reasons, not just strategic, that justify wars.

the terminology of neoconservatism, though not of much interest to me, was answered to me by the book Rise of the Vulcans, by James Mann. Good read, check it out. looks fairly similar to the last article.

He then added on a bit more concerning the last link I gave him on the nature of neoconservatism:

i take that back. this is a far more opinionated view of what neoconservatism became. not that it's wrong, though I don't think it's all right, but it's not aiming for objectivity. my disagreement is the link to the liberal intellectuals that began the movement. they were self described liberals. when they gave up liberalism the called themselves "liberals that had been mugged by reality." their positions changed completely, and at variance with one another. the commonly referred to neoconservative foreign policy agenda of the 90s and 2000s shares very little, in my opinion, with the starting point of that movement in 1930s New York. their is a lineage of individuals but the ideas morphed multifariously. either way, its a moot point in my opinion because domestic progressivism does not tie neatly with a particular foreign policy agenda, and no progressive in the 90s and 2000s agreed with kristol, wolfowitz, fukuyama, etc. on foreign (or domestic, often) policy

He has me beat on this last point, and I have made it a priority not to use Justin Raimondo (of antiwar.com) as a source of intellectual knowledge, as I have been called out for being short on logic before after posting some of his articles (the other authors of antiwar.com are much more solid intellectually, and I'd encourage y'all to check out the site daily).

So I responded to my friend's first barrage, as it was much more pertinent to the discussion at hand anyway:

‎

"I think your point is that human rights abroad are not something you can change, so it's not your concern."

No, that wasn't my point. I provided the links in response to your question about the connection between neoconservative and progressive foreign policies.

I chose to bring up the goals of a colonial governor of Ghana as a way to make the connection between the two schools of thought and their similar approach to dealing with foreign nations. The British government had originally justified its actions against the people in modern day Ghana in terms of human rights: domestic factions wanted to abolish the ongoing slave trade in the region and decided that the only way to accomplish their aim was first through military force and then through government (and NGO's sanctioned by the government) programs designed by planners to impose Western values upon the conquered peoples, thereby "teaching" them to respect human rights. I feel it is pertinent to note the British policy ultimately failed, as slavery still exists in parts of the former British empire.

A map of the British Empire at its height

I didn't do a good enough job elaborating the fact that both progressives and neoconservatives have specific goals in mind for the peoples in occupied states. Both want Western-style parliamentary elections implemented in these states, and both want government (or government-approved) programs implemented in these states to impose a certain set of values on the peoples within these occupied states that satisfies the desires of these similar schools of thought.

That some of the progressive articles dress their stated plans in terms of domestic agendas aimed at "helping" the peoples within these occupied states rather than in pure military and strategic terms, does not take away from the fact that this school of thought has sought to take advantage of the occupations and impose programs that it believes will put an end to the ongoing struggle in the occupied states between liberty and power.

It remains to be seen what would happen to the plans of the progressives if the military of the United States left the occupied states. My guess that the people within these states would probably put an end to the progressive policies implemented throughout the occupation, largely because people don't take kindly to be told what to do and how to think (here I would point to the Greek and Latin aversion to being told that they have to undergo structural adjustment programs by the EU, the recent American election results that eliminated the majority rule of the ruling party, and the increasing, if incremental, policies being undertaken by the Teutonic states to enhance choice in education and retirement options).

The Mediterranean World

None of this suggests a belief that human rights abroad are something you cannot change. Rather, I think the argument suggests that you cannot impose values from above, you cannot enact long-term, healthy change through a top-down approach, and you cannot force people to be more tolerant and understanding through the barrel of a gun (even a barrel that is resting on a lightly-manned base somewhere outside of a populated area).

Now that I have hopefully elucidated my position a bit more, I think I now have the responsibility to elaborate a bit further the ways in which I think long-term, healthy, and completely voluntary change for the better can take place.

The road to actual progress has always been paved through commerce and honest friendship. Let us take the experiences of the United Arab Emirates and Iraq as examples, since both states have very similar cultures.

Today the UAE is largely considered, along with Qatar and Bahrain, to be the most progressively-minded cultures in the Islamic world. The UAE is a tourist destination for many types of foreigners, has a well-functioning government with checks and balances and reflects indigenous culture, has a pretty healthy economy, has non-Islamic centers of worship dotting the main urban areas, and is continuing to press forward with reforms that give women and minorities more political and civil rights. There is, of course, much to be done, but I think we would both agree that the UAE presents a solid case to the world that Muslim culture can and will adapt to change in a positive and universally-acceptable way.

A provincial map of the UAE

Iraq on the other hand is a basket case that has seen brutal dictatorship, war with a few neighboring states, rampant bureaucratic corruption, and ethnic cleansing on a fairly massive scale. It is currently being occupied by a coalition of Western military forces and undergoing drastic structural adjustment policies being imposed upon from above. Women and minorities (religious and ethnic) are constantly being persecuted, and violence in day-to-day affairs is rampant, despite the presence of Western troops in the state.

A deplorable map of Iraq, but useful nonetheless

The vast difference between the two states can be traced to their respective trade policies concerning other nations. Both states have vast oil reserves, but only the UAE is experiencing a progressive change that aligns with universal values and human rights. This is because the UAE has had a history of opening up its borders and resources to foreign access for trade and protecting the property rights and contracts of domestic interests and foreigners engaging in commerce. This policy, over time, leads to more trust between all parties involved, which in turn leads to more cultural exchange and more curiosity towards foreign cultures, which in turn leads to greater understanding, greater tolerance, greater prosperity, and greater liberty for all individuals involved. To top it off, the UAE also retains its sovereignty - politically, economically, and culturally, which allows it to undertake the reforms necessary to guarantee human rights for all within its borders.

Contrast this policy with that of the Baathists of Iraq: a Western-influenced, Western-educated lot who believed that state socialism and Arab nationalism were the keys to success. I'll leave it up to you to figure out what the Baathists thought of private property and foreign commercial relations, and we both know the results of the central economic planning that was undertaken by the socialist-inspired Baath Party of Iraq.

Positive change and support for progress throughout the world is one of the fundamental tenants of libertarianism, my friend. We just happen to believe that such change has to occur through voluntary exchange, local governance, free and open trade, and the rigorous protection of private property rights (but not intellectual property rights!). Not only would such policies contribute to greater awareness and protection of human rights, but the said policies would also enable other cultures to flourish on their own and contribute to the awe-inspiring diversity that makes this world such a beautiful place.

His response(s):

So economic development (and the development of legal systems that protect rights) through free trade. But do you trade with despots that have something you need? What about despots that don't have anything you need but are committing genocide? Do you wait for economic interests of yours to develop so you can begin a relationship? Do you do something to intervene? When and when not? Is there a responsibility on the international community, or a society that respects human rights, to act? Is there a moral imperative? Does it require individuals instead of states? My point is only that I have no steadfast or doctrinare answers to any of these questions.

This also broaches the argument in cultural relativism. If human rights are universal, if the right to property, is something all humans deserve, these ideas are no longer "western values"

My responses here are much longer, as my friend has a very keen intellect and was educated very skillfully by the socialist academy:

‎

"This also broaches the argument in cultural relativism. If human rights are universal, if the right to property, is something all humans deserve, these ideas are no longer 'western values'."

Ah, but here we must be careful not to confuse cultural relativism with moral relativism. Anthropologists in the 1940's, 50's and 60's were not so careful when it came to distinguishing between the two concepts, and as a result, we are unfortunately left having to define and elaborate the differences between the two more often than not.

I think the idea behind moral relativism, at least when it came to the anthropologists of the 1940's, 50's and 60's, was actually more of a way for anthropologists to push the idea of non-Western peoples as being "human" rather than "savages" through a cultural climate that took such stereotypes to be self-evident truths. By blurring the line between culture and morals, the anthropologists of the era hoped (and largely succeeded) to hammer home the point that non-Western cultures are so different from the West because of different sets of morals, not because of a lack of intelligence or initiative.

Although this idea was well-intentioned, the consequences of their actions has led to an even greater misunderstanding of the nature of non-Western societies. Yes, the anthropologists were able to achieve success in the realm of getting Westerners to realize that people outside of the West actually possessed morals and complex social norms, but by maintaining that the root cause of moral differences was in the cultural standards of a society, the anthropologists unwittingly paved the road for the ideas of the neoconservatives and progressives - that is, for the ideas that non-Western peoples just need "help" from the West in terms of economic, educational, political, legal, and social reform programs to enable the said societies to properly flourish.

In other words, by blurring the line between moral and cultural relativism, the anthropologists provided the groundwork for the modern, paternalistic apparatus that currently governs most of the developing world.

This leads me now to the task of explaining how it is not culture that decides a society's morals, but rather that it is morals that determine culture.

All societies have a small, well-defined moral code that seeks to bind to members of the said society into a cohesive and successful group. What's more, the moral code of all societies is essentially the same one: don't kill, don't steal (this implies property rights), don't fuck your neighbor's wife, and don't lie. In other words, morals are universal, but the various ways in which these universals are enforced and acted upon is very different from society to society.

Thus, the various ways in which different societies enforce moral codes, both through legal processes and social norms, can aptly be described as "culture". In the case of murder, for example, some societies, like that of the Yurok of California, would require only that murderers pay restitution to their victim's family. Some societies, like that of the modern United States, requires that murderers be put to death. In other societies, murderers are imprisoned and forced to undergo intense psychotherapy sessions, like in Norway. Some societies in Melanesia will ban a murderer from their village or homeland for life.

A rough map of the traditional territory of the Yurok nation

Hopefully this helps to create a frame of reference as to where cultural diversity comes from.

The 'Western values' you speak of are not part of a moral code. Rather, they are a reflection of the way in which Westerners enforce a universally-recognized moral code. I'm going to use the concept of parliamentary democracy as an example in this case, as it seems to be one of the few areas where both neoconservatives and progressives seem agree on (aside from the idea that non-Western societies need our "help" and not our friendship). For the progressive and the neoconservative, parliamentary democracy is a sign of a healthy society. It is a mechanism for enacting change through a proper channel, and provides a way in which all adult members of a society can participate in the decision-making process of society.

This belief reflects the universal moral of societies that recognizes you can only have a successful society through a consensus in the affairs of governing. But what the progressive and the neoconservative fail to see is that all societies recognize the need for consensus to govern, and that they all have different ways of reaching a said consensus. That is, all societies have elements of democratic rule in them, and when a Western state or coalition of states invades a non-Western state in order to impose parliamentary democracy upon the conquered, the Western states are imposing their values upon the conquered, not their morals.

Also, rights are not deserved. They are inherent in each individual. If an individual does not have rights, it because a government has taken them away...

"So economic development (and the development of legal systems that protect rights) through free trade."

Not quite. Societies outside of the West already have rigorous property rights in place, they are just sometimes hard to conceptualize because of their culturally-defined complexities. Through commerce, those rights and how they are protected will be better understood by all parties involved through cultural and economic exchange. And economic development is not quite the term I would use either. I think that term implies a certain amount of planning by a central authority, rather than a spontaneous evolution of the social process.

"But do you trade with despots that have something you need?"

Yes. The best example I can use to define this position would be that of Fidel Castro's Cuba. The trading embargo currently in place on Cuba has proved to be an utter disaster, as the poor have only gotten poorer and the rich have only gotten richer. The embargo also gives the regime a convenient scapegoat for the massive economic failures of state socialism. Think of what would happen if the embargo was lifted. What do you think the reaction of the people of Cuba would be if they saw (literally) tons of goods from around the free world docked in their harbors being picked clean by Cuban bureaucrats for treasures while leaving the rest of the goods to rot on the ships? International trade actually helps to keep dictators at bay.

A road map of Cuba

"What about despots that don't have anything you need but are committing genocide? Do you wait for economic interests of yours to develop so you can begin a relationship?"

All states have resources that are needed in the international economy. Some may not have access to commodities, but all states have plenty of labor to provide. That is, all states have human beings eager to better their material conditions.

"Do you do something to intervene? When and when not? Is there a responsibility on the international community, or a society that respects human rights, to act? Is there a moral imperative? Does it require individuals instead of states?"

You have to remember that the nature of a despotic regime is isolationist, much in the same way that an abusive spouse seeks to isolate his victim from family and friends. So the best thing the global community could do to prevent genocide from occurring is to promote policies that open up borders and enhance trade and travel opportunities. In the case of actual genocide, I think that the best option for the international community would be to simply keep borders open, so as to ensure that victims (and all of the goods and services they provide) of the genocidal despot have a place to go. If borders are porous and trade is voluminous, then the potential for catastrophe will likely be minimal, as the despot will have a limited scope in terms of victims and in terms of keeping influential allies.

Opening up borders and keeping trade relations open with societies that have lost their liberty to a dictator has never been attempted before, as knee jerk reactions like slapping trade sanctions on an increasingly despotic state and condemning the actions of a said state (and by implication, its people) are the norm.

I think free and open trade would be the best option to pursue, even today. Just imagine if we opened up trade relations with Iran or the Sudan or Cuba or North Korea. Either the despots would lose control of their subjects due to the lack of economic control that would ensue, or the hypocrisies of the regimes would be exposed almost immediately.

Aside from taking certain political steps like keeping borders and trade relations open, I don't think that there is much more states should do. Given the isolationist nature of despotic regimes, I think it would only be natural for the despotic states to cut off all ties with the outside world, so as to better control the economic activities of its citizens. But as long as the international community pursues a policy of laissez-faire in regards to economic activity, then I think you would see individuals - not states - engage in smuggling operations throughout the isolationist regime. After all, I don't think a regime's economic policies would necessarily keep individuals and businesses from attempting to make money by smuggling in goods, services, and ideas. Only trade sanctions imposed by the international community or a coalition of states could do that.

My friend, ever the stoic, takes the liberty to respond to my lengthy barrage:

first comment, you still seem to be talking about development--political, institutional. Leaving out the admittedly paternalistic goal of developing a society, I still think it's defensible to try to define a universal set of human rights, and when those rights are being grossly violated--the woman on the cover of TIME, say--very hard questions need to be answered. You've stated that the answer is not state force and democracy building, but what is the answer? None of our business?

How do we control the openness of borders of despotic regimes? i..e. North Korea.

I support freer trade and more open borders, but it'a a tough transition we are going through, because of those cultural or moral differences, whichever word you want to use. I don't think the way some women are valued and treated in the world is the same moral system with a different penal system. It's also hard because I think workers rights--and basic human dignity--are important, and when we trade across cultures and economic systems we may gloss over values that are not market based, the most egregious perhaps the democratic republic of the congo. It takes time, I suppose, for cultures to mingle and for the world to open up and people to leave despotic regimes for freer lands. But that seems more idealistic than progressive nation building.

All of this--open trade and borders--however, does not address issues like genocide, which are immediate and pressing.

I agree on opening trade to Iran and Cuba, which I think a lot of progressives back as well.

Wow, he's good! Educated in a small liberal arts school in Chicago, I shouldn't be surprised, but his tenacity is very admirable, and I count myself lucky enough to be in his circle of influential persons. I respond:

"[...] you still seem to be talking about development--political, institutional."

I keep coming back to institutional development reform because that's where the neoconservatives and progressives have the most in common, and that's what this thread first centered around.

" I still think it's defensible to try to define a universal set of human rights [...]"

I think rights and the protection thereof definitely need to be integrated into an international system, albeit a very loose one, and one based around the private relations between two disagreeing parties.

"[...] when those rights are being grossly violated--the woman on the cover of TIME, say--very hard questions need to be answered. You've stated that the answer is not state force and democracy building, but what is the answer? None of our business?"

I think the view that a lot of neoconservatives and progressives harbor towards the non-Western world is based upon cultural ignorance rather than logic or reason. Let's take the issue of "women's rights" as an example. I don't think that Western interventionists have much appreciation for the dire straits that a large parts of the developing world is in. The women in these regions of the world are obviously oppressed, but, like I stated earlier in the thread, rights can only be taken away by a government, and the case of women in war-torn regions of the world is no different.

Do you think that the women in these regions of the world think that what is happening to them is culturally acceptable? What about a vast majority of the men in these regions of the world? Do you think that most men in these regions find the lack of respect shown to their women respectable? No, otherwise we wouldn't be hearing stories of women and men struggling against the status quo in these regions.

A lot of the violations of rights, of morals, in these societies has nothing to do with cultural attributes and everything to do with the continued presence of foreign interventionists - in the form of Russian and British imperialism (and the government development programs they brought with them), conservative Arabian theology (and the state-funded development programs they brought with them), and now with an American imperial presence too (and all of the developmental programs that have come with it).

Afghanistan's ethnic groups: an decent map

The problem, then, is the presence of state-funded factions within the troubled regions of the world, and the lack of presence of commercial, voluntary factions whose sole purpose is to trade and establish long-term business ties. Remember, the commercial interests of man have no need to try and "reform" a society or an individual, only a need to produce profits and maintain an edge over its competition through private, voluntary markets.

Again, I think the answer lies in opening up trade routes, opening up our borders, doing away with passports and work visas, and abolishing the military-industrial complex by eliminating federal taxes and bringing our troops home. That is, I think the answer lies in commercial exchange and honest friendship, not paternalistic development programs.

"How do we control the openness of borders of despotic regimes? i..e. North Korea."

We don't. The best thing we could do here is abolish all economic embargoes against the regime, and let markets, through individuals, penetrate the regime in so many different and creative ways that Pyongyang simply abrogates its attempt to control the economic life of the people. But until the governments of the free world loosen their grip on economic actors on our side of the fence, North Korea will continue to suffer dire consequences, as economic opportunity will be slim to none.

"I support freer trade and more open borders, but it'a a tough transition we are going through, because of those cultural or moral differences, whichever word you want to use."

I think though, that the progressive and neoconservative still fail to render that non-Western systems of law and governance are based around the same morals as our own, they just have different cultural varieties of enforcing them. Again, I maintain that culture and morals are two very distinct concepts, and that attempts to blur their meaning leads to drastic misunderstandings.

(Insert bad ass read here)

"It's also hard because I think workers rights--and basic human dignity--are important, and when we trade across cultures and economic systems we may gloss over values that are not market based, the most egregious perhaps the democratic republic of the congo."

An ethnic map of the Congo region in central Africa

If worker's unions are banned in the DR Congo, I'd pin the blame on the Sese Seku regime of Zaire. He most likely passed anti-union laws during the Cold War to placate the United States and secure "aid" money through such "anti-communistic" measures. Repeal the prohibitive laws and workers will be more able to bargain for better wages, though we have to be careful with how we define workers rights, too. Collective bargaining should be legal, but when unions use the coercive power of the state to gain favors that they would otherwise be unable to attain through contract negotiations and competition, then the unions cease to be voluntary actors in a free society and begin to take on a form that resembles the much-maligned modern corporation instead. As an example, I'd take a look at the inflexibility of the federal government and the state of California bureaucracies...

"It takes time, I suppose, for cultures to mingle and for the world to open up and people to leave despotic regimes for freer lands. But that seems more idealistic than progressive nation building."

Perhaps, but I can't think of a period of time in history when cultural norms were changed with a snap-of-the-fingers either. Speaking of historical examples, is it not true that we find when and where borders are open and trade less restricted, societies are more likely to mingle, to engage in cultural exchange, and promote peace and understanding over hostility and nationalism?

And consider the results that nation building has had over the last two centuries. It's not pretty and it has rarely, if ever, achieved the goals that reformers had set out to accomplish in the first place. Now look at the results of freer trade through economic liberalization. In the core states of the European Union you can now find a Frenchman living, working, marrying, attending school, and voting in a German city or town. These two nations fought a vicious war against each other 65 years ago, and look at what open borders and free trade have brought them!

The EU

‎

"All of this--open trade and borders--however, does not address issues like genocide, which are immediate and pressing."

Sure it does. Name me a genocidal regime that is not currently under international economic and political sanctions, and I will proceed to kiss my own ass. Instead of issuing decrees like this, the international community needs to do the exact opposite of what it has been doing for the past 65 years. Instead of slapping trade sanctions on a struggling state, we need to further open up access to the markets of a struggling state by eliminating tariffs on its goods and eliminating subsidies on competing goods at home. Isolating a genocidal regime will only make it stronger, for isolation is the first step to total control of the economic activities of a populace.

And instead of giving away money to genocidal regimes, we should probably be avoiding using government money at all to coax a regime into "playing nice". After all, when was the last time you heard of a genocidal regime giving up power because Western governments gave them enough money to satisfy the "needs of a dictator's people".

Weirdo Moment

2011-01-03T23:27:00.000-08:00

I am PUMPED for my Political Thought class all the way in Cupertino tomorrow! I have been dying of boredom at both the Pink House and at work. Santa Cruz is too small for me, but its so weird, too, which makes me feel at home a lot of the time.

Political Thought class materials at De Anza. So stoked! Look at all the cool stuff! Liberation theory. Islamism. Fascism. Socialism. Liberalism. Conservatism. And, to be honest, it looks like I'm going to get an honest, introductory appraisal of each of these ideologies, which is another reason why I'm looking at UCLA and UC San Diego rather than Berkeley...

This is what the Chinese have been doing with the internet. Weird, huh? I've got to figure out how to use this thing, although even with Google Chrome (which is my favorite browser now) I'm not able to figure out how to navigate through this strange and exotic labyrinth. Even with the internet connecting billions of individuals in one place, there is so much that is strange about other cultures...

An Illogical Treatment of Sex. Sodomy laws are still in effect in a lot of states, and in Virginia oral sex is considered a felony! Imagine...

Leo Tolstoy and Russia today. Not much has changed, but does that surprise anybody? For some odd reason, I have found myself carrying out a number of odd research projects concerning pre-Bolshevik Russian literature in school. What's really odd is that I have strange fascination with Soviet-era literature as well, but have never had the opportunity to do any research. I mean, what kind of literature gets condoned and even promoted by mass murderers? Its got to be interesting...

More on literature, except this time its "cultural imperialism" in the English departments. I'm a big fan of the West, but I do agree with the author here, in that Western art is not better than art from other parts of the world...

A map of Switzerland: We need a foreign policy like the Swiss...

An Ass Out of You and Me

2011-01-03T01:35:00.000-08:00

Why I don't watch professional football anymore...

The Trouble With Liberty... a critique of libertarianism, one of many to come out over the past few weeks. This says to me that the Left is getting jealous of all the bright minds defecting to the middle-grounds of libertarianism.

The Mahdist War...I learned about this war by perusing through the Civilizations IV boards!

Income inequality as calculated by the Gini coefficient...

I'm bummed I missed out on the New Year's wedding...

Love y'all!

New Years Resolutions

2011-01-01T20:03:00.000-08:00

Okay, here goes:

1. Get a sponsor and work the steps. I have a lot of pain and suffering I have to work through, and I know that its not going to be easy.

2. Straight 'A's at Cabrillo, De Anza, and whichever UC I end up going to.

3. That's it! These are the only things in my life worth pursuing right now, which is both depressing and amazing.

What are your resolutions?!

A Bitter Poem

2010-12-30T08:50:00.000-08:00

Self-loathing aims for the heart
Stab bluntly and watch victims bleed
Its the best you can do
To stem your own misery and
Petulant greed

You couldn't
- in all your selfish and superficial glory -
Look me in the eyes

After all
I showed you the world, bitch
Even though you and I
Knew fully well you never deserved it

So here I sit
Admiring this scar
Not on my heart
But behind my two eyes

I can still feel the knife sometimes
Flitting around
You stabbed me in the back
And left me for dead

That shallow grave
You left me to rot in?
Well I clawed, scratched, and fucked
My way out of it
All on my own
The dust and the dirt
I shrugged off with ease

The sky and the birds?
Well, they lost life and luster
Just like those magnificent Santa Cruz trees
For quite some time I walked and I walked
Thinking lost thoughts

But you mistook my kindness for weakness
And I'll get my revenge
For unlike the others
You've hurt with no care
I still have my heart free of
The drama
That you inevitably bring

And I for one
Can't wait for your pain
I'm going to watch
With pure joy and glee
As you suffer and agonize

And just when you think
It can't get much worse
I'll step up to your face
With a smile so sweet
And make sure you know
What its like to be hurt

Nah

I have a world to save
I'm not interested in stuck-up
Superficial
Selfish
Bitches with big bones

With that being said
I must make a note
To me you will always
Be a brick in the wall
And nothing extraordinary

I Need Some Advice!

2010-12-29T16:36:00.000-08:00

Hey y'all, here are the instructions for the proposal I have to turn in to the Honors Symposium committee:

Prepare a proposal abstract of 100-150 words. You must list up to 5 of your most cited sources at the end of the proposal.

Write up a one sentence proposal description. This will be used in the Symposium Program if you are selected to present.

Give your presentation an interesting and descriptive title

And this is what I've come up with so far. Any sort of critiques you could give me would be great, as I won't be able to talk with my Honors counselor until the beginning of February:

Title: From Monopoly to Empire: The Dutch in Java, 1808-1830
Description: An account that delves into the intricate details of indigenous power politics in Java and the East India Company’s (a state-granted monopoly) reaction on the densely-populated island.

Abstract: The standard account of European colonialism in the 19th century is both dull and misleading. Painting a polar picture of power-hungry Europeans bent on world domination and passive acquiescence on the part of non-European populations has not only bored students of history to a proverbial death, but the story has also lent credence, if ever so subtly, to the idea that Europeans somehow possess superior wisdom when it comes to matters of governance, trade, and social organization.

I propose to turn this account on its head, or at least blemish the picture, and suggest that peoples outside of the West were (and are) active, savvy, and proud participants throughout the centuries-long process of political, economic, and cultural integration between the West and “the rest”. My paper has focused on the metamorphosis of a Dutch monopoly focused solely on profits into a full-fledged colonial apparatus controlled outright by the Dutch state.

References:
Carey, Peter. The Power of Prophecy: Prince Dipanagara and the End of an Old Order in Java, 1785-1855. Leiden: KITLV Press, 2007.
Day, Clive. The Dutch in Java. Kuala Lumpur: Oxford University Press, 1966.
De Klerck, E.S. History of the Netherlands East Indies. Vol. 2. Amsterdam: B.M. Israel NV, 1975.
Furnivall, J.S. Netherlands India. London: Cambridge University Press, 1944.
Ricklefs, M.C. A History of Modern Indonesia c. 1300. 2nd ed. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1993.

Again, any critiques at all would be helpful...

Love.

P.S. you can read the essay here if you'd like, though I won't be offended if you don't :)

California Rain

2010-12-22T13:29:00.000-08:00

North of Sacramento
And east of San Francisco
Are the fabled gold-filled foothills
Of California
When it rains
Fog appears from the gullies
And rivers that once flowed with Aurum

Mystic and sweet
Unlike the salt-tinged tears of the ocean
Foothill fog resembles that
Of the Old Continent
Noble, majestic, and old fashioned
This fog only dances
When it rains

UCLA or UC San Diego

Hmmm. This time its for real.

Wow. I used to wake up in puddles of my own puke.
I used to live on my mother's couch, or in my truck.
My friends are either in prison or at home with children and bitchy wives.
Now I'm an Honors student and on my way to a world-class university.
Life is beautiful.
Merry Christmas everybody.