is painful. behold, my room, the many-piled domain of entropy. at least I found my watch.
experiences of the weekend have validated previous observations that balconies are superior to porches and, indeed, many other manifestations of architecture. in more than just the literal sense. my conclusion draws its support not just from a multitude of daytime sunshine and evening conversation upon my balcony, but the same from Kat and Paul's balcony as well. indeed, it seems that the older and more worn a balcony is (and, perhaps, the more precarious), the better. additionally discovered over a weekend of graduation in Houghton, is that balconies are wonderful places to sit in the cool of the evening and listen to Great Big Sea.
balconies also maintain a better entropy than rooms. between the wind and the rain, that which is untended is caught up into a more natural and unsuspended entropy than that which is left in enclosed spaces. there is no artificial prolongation, no long, haunting empty shell clinging motionless.
and that is the rambling of the day.
--
I have decided to continue this round-table political discussion in a place where it will not consume my rather limited creative space here. Abbreviated ponderances and succint considerations on the reified nature of "government" in this debate, whether or not "governments" have a responsibility to act, and if the focus of "righteousness" is personal piety or communal action, will follow in short notice as time permits.
14 May 2006
09 May 2006
For a good conversation...
You wrote that at 7:54 am? AM? I'm lucky if I can remember to put my clothes on forwards at 7:54 am...--Tegan
Yes, dear Tegan, but I am just getting off work at 7:54 am, so my clothes are already on and generally forwards.
...UN...---Just About Everybody
I find this interesting--I think perhaps you who mentioned this are reacting to what you expect to hear...erroneously anticipating the arguement. I never once mentioned the UN in my last post. What I did argue is that governments wield unique capacities to act and responsibilities that individuals, and groups, do not and should not hold. For instance, the governments of the world have created a system by which cruel and abusive dictators, such as Charles Taylor and Slobodan Milosevic, can be brought to justice--something else no individual or non-governmental organization can accomplish. Notice, you alluded to the successful humanitarian intervention to the tsunami by nation-states: Australia and America. The relief could not have been achieved without the close interaction between the governments and the ubiquitous NGOs--non-governmental organizations. NGO's played a vital role--but so did governments. NGOs cannot negotiate trade treaties, tamper with the international and national economy, or help bring stability and peace to anarchic and semi-anarchic situations.
I could care less whether the United Nations or an ad-hoc coalition of the willing are the medium for actions that cannot be accomplished nongovernmentally. Please be careful to read what I write--not what you automatically assume your fallen liberal relative enshrines in the warm and fuzzy cloud world of his ideology. I am not an ideological liberal. I am a practical humanitarian discovering that classic American conservative thought is simply not compatible with the teachings of Jesus Christ.
...impose utopia...
(see above) I never claimed to attempt to impose utopia. What I am trying to do is have active compassion for my neighbor by attempting to establish some semblance of justice and peace in places where people are suffering and dying for the lack. Please don't try and make me into some idea of a cardboard cutout grinning liberal that exists in your head. It demeans the both of us.
The fact that many of the material goods we buy were made elsewhere: who would pay those people for anything if they could not sell things to those Americans who have money to pay? Would they be richer or poorer if no American money was spent in their countries?
Let's creatively rephrase that question. "They should be greatful, those miserable bastards, that we give them anything at all for their lost childhoods, destroyed health, shortened life expectency, miserable working conditions, constant fear of unemployment..."
You have not yet opened your mind to the possibility that the urban poor are a result of economic changes in the world--changes forced by powerful economies in the west (that's you, and me, and everyone we know). The very existence of western economic superpowers and international trade produces changes in national and local economies. Quasi-subsistence farming becomes untenable. Western firms, with capital, introduce mass-production farming, edging small-plot farmers into poverty. The livelihood of hundreds of families becomes the livelihood of a manager, a few tractors and a score of hired hands. Where do those families go? They cannot compete, so they have no way to make bread. No money to send their children to school with. No land, because corporations take what they cannot buy, harnessing their economic power to secure political power through the cooperation of corrupt local officials.
During the Industrial Revolution in Great Britain, the problem was apparent--the abuse of cheap labor, unhealthy working conditions, minor miners, etc.--were next door. So Christians made a stink and the government changed the rules. Now, the injustice is easier to ignore because it is far away--but it is still our problem. We are involved in it, it is wrong, so why are the Christians like you doing nothing to change it?
Is it bad or good that Americans buy cotton which is grown in the US? Is it bad or good for the government to tinker with the market by subsidizing a crop in that way?
I believe in freedom. Americans should be able to buy cotton grown in the US if they so desire. I don't belive there is, ethically, any inherent justice or injustice in either subsidization and economic control or the laissez faire. I do believe, however, that there is something injust about the use of power to benefit one person or group of persons at the expense of another person or group of persons. That is what angers me about the United States--not that she is rich, or powerful, but that she bases that wealth upon injustice and uses that power to further her wealth at the expense of others. Sometimes to their detrimental and impoverishing expense. Sometimes to the point of impoverishing other countries and destabilizing their economies.
Since when did governments ever do anything but tax people, blow things up, and punish those who disobeyed their (the government's) rules? Can you think of even one instance where the government has been successful in "fixing" anything like you suggest it has the power to?
and
How do government offices visit people in prison, train people to become self-reliant?
You are apparently suffering from a critical lack of imagination. I work for a government-funded agency that provided emergency medical care within eight minutes of a telephone call. We work with government-funded people who will put out any fires that threaten your house and property. Your water is delivered to your tap, clean and drinkable, by the government, and whisked away to be safely recycled by the same government, after you've used it. The government makes sure you have a nice, green, oxygen-producing national forest to go to so that you don't have to vacation someplace paved. I went to college and learned self-reliance in part due to a government loan. The library that you enjoy was made possible...by the government. Government job-retraining projects were part of the conservative welfare revolution that decreased the welfare roles and made more people...self-reliant. This is a short list. Stretch your mind a little.
Let's look internationally. National governments have cooperated to put both Slobodan Milosevic and Charles Taylor on trial for the crimes they commited while they were in positions of power. Until recently, national governments cooperated to stop the proliferation and use of nuclear weapons, a hazard to us all. It was the United States government, acting in concert with other nations, that acted so ably to assist those devastated by the December 2004 Tsunami. National governments participated in an international ban on the trade of ivory, stemming the demand that drove both and elephants and rhinocerouses almost to extinction. Governments and coalitions can provide a neutral force to enforce cease-fires, disarm warlords of their private armies and return power to more representative, less thuggishly self-serving governments, and defend neutral places such as refugee camps where noncombatants can live safely and recieve medical attention, clean water, and food.
And finally...the United Nations (I will finally bring her into the discussion) regulates and overseas the internet internationally so that Jeff can join this discussion from Tanzania. It does so with such effectiveness--that you didn't even know it was involved.
Next, I don't see why you as an individual couldn't get together a group of like-minded people and find a way to smuggle in food, water, and medical care to hurting people. If others are smuggling weapons, bullets, bombs, and other such truck into the country, why can't someone smuggle in the things those people really need?
Again, you suffer from a lack of imagination. You cannot smuggle in healthcare, education when there is no peace. People cannot carry on with life when they live in the constant and real fear that someone is going to ride into town, take their food and belongings, rape their women, and force their children to execute their parents and grandparents. This is not hypothetical--this is actual, documented, widespread.
You cannot smuggle in peace. Nor can you smuggle in economic justice and opportunity when governments and organizations with money, guns, and the power they bring are happily taking part in economic injustice at the expense of people's economic opportunity. Not to mention the economic and political injustice that we, the world's most powerful nation, are actively involved in.
You said intervening personally would get you killed. So? The Iron Curtain came down because individuals stood up for their faith, got imprisoned, slain, were beaten, and somebody managed to get out and tell about it. If nobody has the guts to get imprisoned, then who will the government send to act on their behalf?
No. The Iron Curtain fell because it was opposed and considered unjust by many people, including Ronald Reagan, a head of state who used the power of both the United States government and coalitions of other national governments to resist, undermine, and promote change within the Communist Bloc. People had been standing up for their ideas, and dying in droves, for a long time before the Iron Curtain fell.
Additionally, it's not a matter about having the guts to be imprisoned for some lofty ideal. It's about wanting to be live in peace and instead being subjected to anarchy, genocide, banditry, rape, slavery, child-soldiering, and famine, but not being able to do anything about it. Those who "stand up" for anything against armed mobs lay down quite quickly and permanently and those in power do not care. In the Iron Curtain, they learned to care, because even in the Iron Curtain it was unacceptable to openly slay large segments of the populace. Not so in anarchy and failed states.
And Finally...
As for Christian symbolism, Jesus didn't appeal to the government to fix anything. He appealed to the people, the people who had nothing, to be generous with each other. Jesus didn't preach to the rich, he spoke to the poor, the needy, and the destitute. He advocated a world without government, not a world with the perfect one. He advocated a world in which everyone was self-governing.
Does your Jesus speak to Lazarus about embezzlement and abuse of tax-gathering status? Does not your Jesus advise wealthy young men from Arimathea? Were there not bureaucrats and centurions in thoselarge crowds of people? Wasn't Jesus' ministry supported by a group of wealthy women? Does the Jesus you know address the injustice of women being stoned for being found in adultery...while the man with whom she was committing adultery was not being stoned? Does he not say "Render onto Caesar what is Caesar's"?
Remember that Jesus lived in an occupied country where religious courts handled much of the day to day governance, and Jesus had an awful lot to say to those religious leaders about their justice and their concern for the poor and helpless. Remember that the national government was not a democracy, but a puppet monarchy, in which the people had no say whatsoever. Remember that economies were to a larger extent simple and local, without the massive centralization of power and resources that exists today.
Yes, dear Tegan, but I am just getting off work at 7:54 am, so my clothes are already on and generally forwards.
...UN...---Just About Everybody
I find this interesting--I think perhaps you who mentioned this are reacting to what you expect to hear...erroneously anticipating the arguement. I never once mentioned the UN in my last post. What I did argue is that governments wield unique capacities to act and responsibilities that individuals, and groups, do not and should not hold. For instance, the governments of the world have created a system by which cruel and abusive dictators, such as Charles Taylor and Slobodan Milosevic, can be brought to justice--something else no individual or non-governmental organization can accomplish. Notice, you alluded to the successful humanitarian intervention to the tsunami by nation-states: Australia and America. The relief could not have been achieved without the close interaction between the governments and the ubiquitous NGOs--non-governmental organizations. NGO's played a vital role--but so did governments. NGOs cannot negotiate trade treaties, tamper with the international and national economy, or help bring stability and peace to anarchic and semi-anarchic situations.
I could care less whether the United Nations or an ad-hoc coalition of the willing are the medium for actions that cannot be accomplished nongovernmentally. Please be careful to read what I write--not what you automatically assume your fallen liberal relative enshrines in the warm and fuzzy cloud world of his ideology. I am not an ideological liberal. I am a practical humanitarian discovering that classic American conservative thought is simply not compatible with the teachings of Jesus Christ.
...impose utopia...
(see above) I never claimed to attempt to impose utopia. What I am trying to do is have active compassion for my neighbor by attempting to establish some semblance of justice and peace in places where people are suffering and dying for the lack. Please don't try and make me into some idea of a cardboard cutout grinning liberal that exists in your head. It demeans the both of us.
The fact that many of the material goods we buy were made elsewhere: who would pay those people for anything if they could not sell things to those Americans who have money to pay? Would they be richer or poorer if no American money was spent in their countries?
Let's creatively rephrase that question. "They should be greatful, those miserable bastards, that we give them anything at all for their lost childhoods, destroyed health, shortened life expectency, miserable working conditions, constant fear of unemployment..."
You have not yet opened your mind to the possibility that the urban poor are a result of economic changes in the world--changes forced by powerful economies in the west (that's you, and me, and everyone we know). The very existence of western economic superpowers and international trade produces changes in national and local economies. Quasi-subsistence farming becomes untenable. Western firms, with capital, introduce mass-production farming, edging small-plot farmers into poverty. The livelihood of hundreds of families becomes the livelihood of a manager, a few tractors and a score of hired hands. Where do those families go? They cannot compete, so they have no way to make bread. No money to send their children to school with. No land, because corporations take what they cannot buy, harnessing their economic power to secure political power through the cooperation of corrupt local officials.
During the Industrial Revolution in Great Britain, the problem was apparent--the abuse of cheap labor, unhealthy working conditions, minor miners, etc.--were next door. So Christians made a stink and the government changed the rules. Now, the injustice is easier to ignore because it is far away--but it is still our problem. We are involved in it, it is wrong, so why are the Christians like you doing nothing to change it?
Is it bad or good that Americans buy cotton which is grown in the US? Is it bad or good for the government to tinker with the market by subsidizing a crop in that way?
I believe in freedom. Americans should be able to buy cotton grown in the US if they so desire. I don't belive there is, ethically, any inherent justice or injustice in either subsidization and economic control or the laissez faire. I do believe, however, that there is something injust about the use of power to benefit one person or group of persons at the expense of another person or group of persons. That is what angers me about the United States--not that she is rich, or powerful, but that she bases that wealth upon injustice and uses that power to further her wealth at the expense of others. Sometimes to their detrimental and impoverishing expense. Sometimes to the point of impoverishing other countries and destabilizing their economies.
Since when did governments ever do anything but tax people, blow things up, and punish those who disobeyed their (the government's) rules? Can you think of even one instance where the government has been successful in "fixing" anything like you suggest it has the power to?
and
How do government offices visit people in prison, train people to become self-reliant?
You are apparently suffering from a critical lack of imagination. I work for a government-funded agency that provided emergency medical care within eight minutes of a telephone call. We work with government-funded people who will put out any fires that threaten your house and property. Your water is delivered to your tap, clean and drinkable, by the government, and whisked away to be safely recycled by the same government, after you've used it. The government makes sure you have a nice, green, oxygen-producing national forest to go to so that you don't have to vacation someplace paved. I went to college and learned self-reliance in part due to a government loan. The library that you enjoy was made possible...by the government. Government job-retraining projects were part of the conservative welfare revolution that decreased the welfare roles and made more people...self-reliant. This is a short list. Stretch your mind a little.
Let's look internationally. National governments have cooperated to put both Slobodan Milosevic and Charles Taylor on trial for the crimes they commited while they were in positions of power. Until recently, national governments cooperated to stop the proliferation and use of nuclear weapons, a hazard to us all. It was the United States government, acting in concert with other nations, that acted so ably to assist those devastated by the December 2004 Tsunami. National governments participated in an international ban on the trade of ivory, stemming the demand that drove both and elephants and rhinocerouses almost to extinction. Governments and coalitions can provide a neutral force to enforce cease-fires, disarm warlords of their private armies and return power to more representative, less thuggishly self-serving governments, and defend neutral places such as refugee camps where noncombatants can live safely and recieve medical attention, clean water, and food.
And finally...the United Nations (I will finally bring her into the discussion) regulates and overseas the internet internationally so that Jeff can join this discussion from Tanzania. It does so with such effectiveness--that you didn't even know it was involved.
Next, I don't see why you as an individual couldn't get together a group of like-minded people and find a way to smuggle in food, water, and medical care to hurting people. If others are smuggling weapons, bullets, bombs, and other such truck into the country, why can't someone smuggle in the things those people really need?
Again, you suffer from a lack of imagination. You cannot smuggle in healthcare, education when there is no peace. People cannot carry on with life when they live in the constant and real fear that someone is going to ride into town, take their food and belongings, rape their women, and force their children to execute their parents and grandparents. This is not hypothetical--this is actual, documented, widespread.
You cannot smuggle in peace. Nor can you smuggle in economic justice and opportunity when governments and organizations with money, guns, and the power they bring are happily taking part in economic injustice at the expense of people's economic opportunity. Not to mention the economic and political injustice that we, the world's most powerful nation, are actively involved in.
You said intervening personally would get you killed. So? The Iron Curtain came down because individuals stood up for their faith, got imprisoned, slain, were beaten, and somebody managed to get out and tell about it. If nobody has the guts to get imprisoned, then who will the government send to act on their behalf?
No. The Iron Curtain fell because it was opposed and considered unjust by many people, including Ronald Reagan, a head of state who used the power of both the United States government and coalitions of other national governments to resist, undermine, and promote change within the Communist Bloc. People had been standing up for their ideas, and dying in droves, for a long time before the Iron Curtain fell.
Additionally, it's not a matter about having the guts to be imprisoned for some lofty ideal. It's about wanting to be live in peace and instead being subjected to anarchy, genocide, banditry, rape, slavery, child-soldiering, and famine, but not being able to do anything about it. Those who "stand up" for anything against armed mobs lay down quite quickly and permanently and those in power do not care. In the Iron Curtain, they learned to care, because even in the Iron Curtain it was unacceptable to openly slay large segments of the populace. Not so in anarchy and failed states.
And Finally...
As for Christian symbolism, Jesus didn't appeal to the government to fix anything. He appealed to the people, the people who had nothing, to be generous with each other. Jesus didn't preach to the rich, he spoke to the poor, the needy, and the destitute. He advocated a world without government, not a world with the perfect one. He advocated a world in which everyone was self-governing.
Does your Jesus speak to Lazarus about embezzlement and abuse of tax-gathering status? Does not your Jesus advise wealthy young men from Arimathea? Were there not bureaucrats and centurions in thoselarge crowds of people? Wasn't Jesus' ministry supported by a group of wealthy women? Does the Jesus you know address the injustice of women being stoned for being found in adultery...while the man with whom she was committing adultery was not being stoned? Does he not say "Render onto Caesar what is Caesar's"?
Remember that Jesus lived in an occupied country where religious courts handled much of the day to day governance, and Jesus had an awful lot to say to those religious leaders about their justice and their concern for the poor and helpless. Remember that the national government was not a democracy, but a puppet monarchy, in which the people had no say whatsoever. Remember that economies were to a larger extent simple and local, without the massive centralization of power and resources that exists today.
08 May 2006
lettin' ya'll sit in around the infamous Holcomb dinner table
What's with this recurring theme that because we in America have it good someone else has to be getting the short end of the stick? I never understood that thought process and still don't.
Also I think getting into situations in other countries militarily, providing the situation isn't really effecting the US, is getting into a fight that was never ours in the first place. Personally going and trying to help solve the problems that these troubled peoples have is the best way to show compassion in my book.
It's just too easy to sit back and say, "that's too bad, we should send the government in to fix it . . ." Especially when there is plenty of junk going on here at home that needs fixing.
Anyway, my two bits.
David
Dear David,
excellent questions. Here are my responses:
i) people around the world are obviously and continually getting the short end of the stick. Americans are obviously, in a material and political sense, ridiculously and incomparably wealthy, with only Europe for comparison. You are arguing from a standpoint where the two can be separated. I, along with good Marxists everywhere, argue that they cannot, especially when you consider how interconnected the world economy is.
Almost everything you wear today is made somewhere else. Taiwan, Indonesia, Malaysia, just read the tags. Taiwan, economically and politically, is doing all right. Indonesia and Malaysia...not so much. The reason the American clothing market can function with the opulence that it does is sheerly because children under the age of twelve work in sweatshops for a pittance This is the ugly truth about the world economy: people with power can exploit people without power in order to make more money for themselves. During my research on agricultural subsidies, I discovered that American cotton growers were being paid to the tune of billions of dollars by the federal government to grow cotton. This allowed them to charge ridiculously low prices, driving North African cotton growers into poverty and bankruptcy--wreaking havoc on their already fragile economies. All so that Americans could have the most prosperous and successful economy in the world.
If you ever want an interesting conversation, I will give you my friend Tegan's phone number; ask her why she does not wear a diamond engagement ring. She is rather passionate about the awful and quite hazardous conditions that exist in diamond mines in Africa, the disproportionally ridiculously low wages the workers are paid, and the integral role diamonds play in the illegal arms trade--a trade which results in massive amounts of AK-47s and bullets which end up in places like Rwanda and the Sudan. Which brings me, after a short digression, to your second question.
--short digression--As I hope I made clear, you cannot separate our prosperous economy here from suffering and misery over there. It does not aid matters that our political power is brought to bear on foreign economies in order to gain preferential and often unfair advantages for our economy. American's are demanding "fair prices at the pumps" when in reality, we enjoy some of the lowest gas prices in the world, due to effective diplomacy and interference in the affairs of foreign powers. Also consider South America, where the United States felt free to meddle in the seventies, eighties, and nineties, assisting in the toppling of governments and tinkering with their economies. If their problems can not be justly laid at our doorstep, we can at least admit to playing a significant role in their creation. We are inextricably linked to the rest of the world, and while our prosperity and wealth and peace are good things, they are not good things if they exist because of unjust relationships with other nations and the abuse of power and position. A great South American painter once portrayed a successful executive in his well-panelled office, behind the stereotypical massive desk. But his desk was not held up by wooden drawers and legs--it rested on the backs of shackled and crippled poor people. Does our prosperity rest on the back of shackled and crippled poor people? You as a Christian should be immediately concerned at this prospect, for whether across the street or over the sea, the poor are your neighbors--this Jesus was adamant about.
But that is digression. What is point nubmer ii? It had to do with AK-47's, I believe.
ii) Once more we arrive at the issue of power. People with guns have power that people without them do not have. People with governments have power that people alone do not have. With that power comes an ability that transcends the power of the individual. I, as an individual, am powerless to stop a bullet or a bomb or a torch from setting fire to a hut. As an individual with a gun, I can perhaps kill a few people, but I cannot prevent the government of the Sudan from funding these janjaweed militias and I will not last long against any concerted group. And as an individual, I cannot stop the illegal international arms trade, that puts guns and machetes into the hands of mobs everywhere. And I, as an individual, cannot set up a hospital or a safe zone or a refugee camp--I have no power to do so.
But governments do. Governments exist because there are things that established authority can do that individuals cannot: regulate competing interest, protect the weak from the strong, provide education and healthcare to those who cannot afford it. Governments can also protect "public goods" (things like clean air and water, public safety, national forests) that can be destroyed or taken from everyone by individuals or small groups.
Individuals in destabilized countries such as Somalia and certain regions of the Sudan, as well as in Rwanda during the genocide, have no choices--they cannot choose to live in peace or choose to not pollute their wells or choose to live healthy lifestyles with good medical care. Those things are taken from them by individuals and small groups of people with power--economic power, and the power that comes from wielding armed force. They can chose to take up arms--if they are available--and fight with one group or another, but they cannot choose to live in peace unless they live under a stable government who has an interest in their peace.
I cannot as an individual do anything about that. I cannot even feed the hungry, clothe the naked, visit the lonely and imprisoned, give the thirsty clean water, or care for those in need of medical attention--because governments and gangs and ideologues will kill and/or rob both me and the people I would try to help.
But governments--and leagues of governments--can stop the illegal arms trade, denying militias like the janjaweed access to the basic element of their power: bullets. They can pressure corrupt indifferent governments to become governments interested in the welfare of their people. They can provide safe-zones for refugees and protect aid convoys and delivery zones. They can not only pray for the peace of the proverbial Jerusalem, but actually do something about it.
I am intentionally adopting the language and imagery of the Christian Scriptures because I am trying to remind you of the Christian imperative to love, and serve, our neighbors; to champion the cause of the helpless and the poor. Christ is not a capitalist; he is not an American; and most importantly, he does not believe in leaving people to their own devices or their own messes. Rather, in the midst of our mess, he left Heaven to come help us reconcile to each other and God and heal this wounded world. For his pains he was ignored, villified, and painfully put to death--yet He came with aid anyway, and continues to this day working to usher in a Kingdom of Heaven, a place without injustice, hatred, war, death, plague, inequality or famine. It was the hope of this kingdom that propelled him during his earthly ministry, and it was the proclamation of that kingdom that he made the focal point of that ministry. He described his mission as bringing healing to the sick, freedom to the captives, good news to the poor people, and wholeness to the brokenhearted, all wrapped up in the favorable year of the Lord. And he left hanging unsaid the next verse which rang in the memory of his audience: ...and the day of the vengeance of our God.
The vengeance is easy to find in the works of the prophets, from Amos to Isaiah. It is vengeance upon the wealthy and powerful who exploit and abuse the helpless. Read the prophets and see how often the welfare of the helpless--"the widows and fatherless"--is God's cetral, sorrowful, angry theme. The rich rarely do well in the prophets, and we are the richest in the world today. Even we, little brother, of modest and unostentatious means among our fellow Americans, are wealthy beyond compare in the eyes of two-thirds of the world's six billion people. We ought to bear our wealth carefully, as those who will give an account of our actions as stewards to a master with a fondness for charity and involvement in the cause of the helpless.
Sincerely,
Dan
Also I think getting into situations in other countries militarily, providing the situation isn't really effecting the US, is getting into a fight that was never ours in the first place. Personally going and trying to help solve the problems that these troubled peoples have is the best way to show compassion in my book.
It's just too easy to sit back and say, "that's too bad, we should send the government in to fix it . . ." Especially when there is plenty of junk going on here at home that needs fixing.
Anyway, my two bits.
David
Dear David,
excellent questions. Here are my responses:
i) people around the world are obviously and continually getting the short end of the stick. Americans are obviously, in a material and political sense, ridiculously and incomparably wealthy, with only Europe for comparison. You are arguing from a standpoint where the two can be separated. I, along with good Marxists everywhere, argue that they cannot, especially when you consider how interconnected the world economy is.
Almost everything you wear today is made somewhere else. Taiwan, Indonesia, Malaysia, just read the tags. Taiwan, economically and politically, is doing all right. Indonesia and Malaysia...not so much. The reason the American clothing market can function with the opulence that it does is sheerly because children under the age of twelve work in sweatshops for a pittance This is the ugly truth about the world economy: people with power can exploit people without power in order to make more money for themselves. During my research on agricultural subsidies, I discovered that American cotton growers were being paid to the tune of billions of dollars by the federal government to grow cotton. This allowed them to charge ridiculously low prices, driving North African cotton growers into poverty and bankruptcy--wreaking havoc on their already fragile economies. All so that Americans could have the most prosperous and successful economy in the world.
If you ever want an interesting conversation, I will give you my friend Tegan's phone number; ask her why she does not wear a diamond engagement ring. She is rather passionate about the awful and quite hazardous conditions that exist in diamond mines in Africa, the disproportionally ridiculously low wages the workers are paid, and the integral role diamonds play in the illegal arms trade--a trade which results in massive amounts of AK-47s and bullets which end up in places like Rwanda and the Sudan. Which brings me, after a short digression, to your second question.
--short digression--As I hope I made clear, you cannot separate our prosperous economy here from suffering and misery over there. It does not aid matters that our political power is brought to bear on foreign economies in order to gain preferential and often unfair advantages for our economy. American's are demanding "fair prices at the pumps" when in reality, we enjoy some of the lowest gas prices in the world, due to effective diplomacy and interference in the affairs of foreign powers. Also consider South America, where the United States felt free to meddle in the seventies, eighties, and nineties, assisting in the toppling of governments and tinkering with their economies. If their problems can not be justly laid at our doorstep, we can at least admit to playing a significant role in their creation. We are inextricably linked to the rest of the world, and while our prosperity and wealth and peace are good things, they are not good things if they exist because of unjust relationships with other nations and the abuse of power and position. A great South American painter once portrayed a successful executive in his well-panelled office, behind the stereotypical massive desk. But his desk was not held up by wooden drawers and legs--it rested on the backs of shackled and crippled poor people. Does our prosperity rest on the back of shackled and crippled poor people? You as a Christian should be immediately concerned at this prospect, for whether across the street or over the sea, the poor are your neighbors--this Jesus was adamant about.
But that is digression. What is point nubmer ii? It had to do with AK-47's, I believe.
ii) Once more we arrive at the issue of power. People with guns have power that people without them do not have. People with governments have power that people alone do not have. With that power comes an ability that transcends the power of the individual. I, as an individual, am powerless to stop a bullet or a bomb or a torch from setting fire to a hut. As an individual with a gun, I can perhaps kill a few people, but I cannot prevent the government of the Sudan from funding these janjaweed militias and I will not last long against any concerted group. And as an individual, I cannot stop the illegal international arms trade, that puts guns and machetes into the hands of mobs everywhere. And I, as an individual, cannot set up a hospital or a safe zone or a refugee camp--I have no power to do so.
But governments do. Governments exist because there are things that established authority can do that individuals cannot: regulate competing interest, protect the weak from the strong, provide education and healthcare to those who cannot afford it. Governments can also protect "public goods" (things like clean air and water, public safety, national forests) that can be destroyed or taken from everyone by individuals or small groups.
Individuals in destabilized countries such as Somalia and certain regions of the Sudan, as well as in Rwanda during the genocide, have no choices--they cannot choose to live in peace or choose to not pollute their wells or choose to live healthy lifestyles with good medical care. Those things are taken from them by individuals and small groups of people with power--economic power, and the power that comes from wielding armed force. They can chose to take up arms--if they are available--and fight with one group or another, but they cannot choose to live in peace unless they live under a stable government who has an interest in their peace.
I cannot as an individual do anything about that. I cannot even feed the hungry, clothe the naked, visit the lonely and imprisoned, give the thirsty clean water, or care for those in need of medical attention--because governments and gangs and ideologues will kill and/or rob both me and the people I would try to help.
But governments--and leagues of governments--can stop the illegal arms trade, denying militias like the janjaweed access to the basic element of their power: bullets. They can pressure corrupt indifferent governments to become governments interested in the welfare of their people. They can provide safe-zones for refugees and protect aid convoys and delivery zones. They can not only pray for the peace of the proverbial Jerusalem, but actually do something about it.
I am intentionally adopting the language and imagery of the Christian Scriptures because I am trying to remind you of the Christian imperative to love, and serve, our neighbors; to champion the cause of the helpless and the poor. Christ is not a capitalist; he is not an American; and most importantly, he does not believe in leaving people to their own devices or their own messes. Rather, in the midst of our mess, he left Heaven to come help us reconcile to each other and God and heal this wounded world. For his pains he was ignored, villified, and painfully put to death--yet He came with aid anyway, and continues to this day working to usher in a Kingdom of Heaven, a place without injustice, hatred, war, death, plague, inequality or famine. It was the hope of this kingdom that propelled him during his earthly ministry, and it was the proclamation of that kingdom that he made the focal point of that ministry. He described his mission as bringing healing to the sick, freedom to the captives, good news to the poor people, and wholeness to the brokenhearted, all wrapped up in the favorable year of the Lord. And he left hanging unsaid the next verse which rang in the memory of his audience: ...and the day of the vengeance of our God.
The vengeance is easy to find in the works of the prophets, from Amos to Isaiah. It is vengeance upon the wealthy and powerful who exploit and abuse the helpless. Read the prophets and see how often the welfare of the helpless--"the widows and fatherless"--is God's cetral, sorrowful, angry theme. The rich rarely do well in the prophets, and we are the richest in the world today. Even we, little brother, of modest and unostentatious means among our fellow Americans, are wealthy beyond compare in the eyes of two-thirds of the world's six billion people. We ought to bear our wealth carefully, as those who will give an account of our actions as stewards to a master with a fondness for charity and involvement in the cause of the helpless.
Sincerely,
Dan
03 May 2006
letters to family and friends
dear steve--
let me reiterate: this gentleman prosposed nuclear genocide, the armed appropriation of others' resources, the merciless execution without trial both of "terrorists" and their innocent families, all for the sake of a more comfortable and prosperous American existence with no regard to the expense the rest of the world is forced to bear in order to make that existence comfortable.
that is neither acceptable, practical, nor tenable. its only tenuous connection with the term "solution" is that which can be drawn to ideas such as "The Final Solution."
also, as Tegan put excellently and I shall briefly reiterate, the "problem" is not bad guys fighting bad guys, but the attendant famine, disease, rape, pillage, slaughter, conscription of children into armies, and horrible cost borne by those who have conflict thrust upon them.
this is not a war of armies. this is a war of mobs of men (and children) with guns. there is no optional involvement: you don't choose to lose access to medical care, food, your own land, your life, your family. the people with the guns chose for you. fight and die, or run and die, there are you options. the world is not as pretty and safe as life in America. they can't "just get a job" over there.
so, "tying up our military to solve other people's problems" is more like "sending our armed forces into harms way to protect those who cannot protect themselves" and takiing an effort to tend to the helpless and suffering--sounds a bit like widows and fatherless that the old testament prophets got all bent out of shape about. refugees and malaria patients and the like.
your militant liberal brother,
dan
jeffrey--
thank you for some salient points. as usual, while i remain in the realm of rhetoric and theory, you actually have some concrete historical data. bravo, I shall have to tame my biting criticism of the evil American capitalists for the moment.
and good thought about that ticket...
your sheepishly militant liberal brother,
dan
dear self--
the most amazing conclusion that i have drawn from this little exchange is the revalation that this blue-collar American advocated a morality that was actually more despicable than that of a standard jihading terrorist. let me reiterate: death squads, summary execution of family members, nuclear warfare...
at least a suicide bomber has some notion of self-sacrifice for a greater good while defending home and country. at least he claims some sort of moral code.
perhaps the logic of a terrorist is not that difficult or alien to our civilized way of life as we would like to believe. I may be "peevishly self-involved," but I also may be closer to genuine evil that I'd like to believe.
self
and finally, on a lighter and more important note
dear gustav and fellow pennsylvanians,
i extend my sincere condolences for the psychological trauma you must have experienced last night. while it was my hope that our own Buffalo Sabres would find victory in your hallowed arena last night, we did not in our wildest dreams anticipate the most humiliating drubbing your Philadelphia Flyers were made to endure in their own horrifyingly hushed stadium last night. three unanswered goals in the first fifteen minutes of game time was really a tough blow, but when your first goal of the night, just before the end of the second quarter, was immediately answered with our sixth of the night, that was just cruel. to lose 7-1 on your sixth, and unfortunately las game of the playoffs, must be an unbearable agony in light of the hope rekindled by your recent victories.
it must have been difficult. i wince imagining it. in your honor i sall contain my gleeful grinning for five minutes of somber silence and petition our father in heaven to restrain his partying as well and grant you some respite for your troubled souls.
-now-a-sabres-fan-cuz-the-wings-just-got-knocked-out-of-the-playoffs-by-some-two-bit-canuck-team,
dan
let me reiterate: this gentleman prosposed nuclear genocide, the armed appropriation of others' resources, the merciless execution without trial both of "terrorists" and their innocent families, all for the sake of a more comfortable and prosperous American existence with no regard to the expense the rest of the world is forced to bear in order to make that existence comfortable.
that is neither acceptable, practical, nor tenable. its only tenuous connection with the term "solution" is that which can be drawn to ideas such as "The Final Solution."
also, as Tegan put excellently and I shall briefly reiterate, the "problem" is not bad guys fighting bad guys, but the attendant famine, disease, rape, pillage, slaughter, conscription of children into armies, and horrible cost borne by those who have conflict thrust upon them.
this is not a war of armies. this is a war of mobs of men (and children) with guns. there is no optional involvement: you don't choose to lose access to medical care, food, your own land, your life, your family. the people with the guns chose for you. fight and die, or run and die, there are you options. the world is not as pretty and safe as life in America. they can't "just get a job" over there.
so, "tying up our military to solve other people's problems" is more like "sending our armed forces into harms way to protect those who cannot protect themselves" and takiing an effort to tend to the helpless and suffering--sounds a bit like widows and fatherless that the old testament prophets got all bent out of shape about. refugees and malaria patients and the like.
your militant liberal brother,
dan
jeffrey--
thank you for some salient points. as usual, while i remain in the realm of rhetoric and theory, you actually have some concrete historical data. bravo, I shall have to tame my biting criticism of the evil American capitalists for the moment.
and good thought about that ticket...
your sheepishly militant liberal brother,
dan
dear self--
the most amazing conclusion that i have drawn from this little exchange is the revalation that this blue-collar American advocated a morality that was actually more despicable than that of a standard jihading terrorist. let me reiterate: death squads, summary execution of family members, nuclear warfare...
at least a suicide bomber has some notion of self-sacrifice for a greater good while defending home and country. at least he claims some sort of moral code.
perhaps the logic of a terrorist is not that difficult or alien to our civilized way of life as we would like to believe. I may be "peevishly self-involved," but I also may be closer to genuine evil that I'd like to believe.
self
and finally, on a lighter and more important note
dear gustav and fellow pennsylvanians,
i extend my sincere condolences for the psychological trauma you must have experienced last night. while it was my hope that our own Buffalo Sabres would find victory in your hallowed arena last night, we did not in our wildest dreams anticipate the most humiliating drubbing your Philadelphia Flyers were made to endure in their own horrifyingly hushed stadium last night. three unanswered goals in the first fifteen minutes of game time was really a tough blow, but when your first goal of the night, just before the end of the second quarter, was immediately answered with our sixth of the night, that was just cruel. to lose 7-1 on your sixth, and unfortunately las game of the playoffs, must be an unbearable agony in light of the hope rekindled by your recent victories.
it must have been difficult. i wince imagining it. in your honor i sall contain my gleeful grinning for five minutes of somber silence and petition our father in heaven to restrain his partying as well and grant you some respite for your troubled souls.
-now-a-sabres-fan-cuz-the-wings-just-got-knocked-out-of-the-playoffs-by-some-two-bit-canuck-team,
dan
01 May 2006
so this one time at a Billy Graham Jihad...
been dyin' to say that for such a long time. in light of what happened last night, I feel no qualms whatsoever. BBC (you can hear it on NPR after midnight) sparked a discussion with my medic in which I amazingly maintained a restrained tone of voice.
highlights include:
-the solution to the Darfur issue is to let them kill each other. there are too many bleeding heart compassionate people in the world.
But, sir, women and children are being massacred by government-armed, American-oil-company-backed militias. American corporations actively destabilize, subvert, and aid in the corruption of weak governments in order to exploit such situations.
-it's not my problem.
But, sir, the price of oil would go up.
-then we should just go in and take it. we're the most powerful nation on the globe. why should their problems interfere with our economy?
Umm...remember Vietnam? you know, how completely impossible it is to invade and control a country that doesn't want you there? besides, isn't that robbery? we're having a pretty damn difficult time just maintaining stability in Iraq right now. We're stretched really thin. I don't think you can really manage that.
-we should have just nuked 'em.
What?!!
-yeah. nuked 'em and taken the oil. problem solved. situation stable.
Nuclear warfare? Aren't you worried about fallout, nuclear winter, radiation contamination?
-nope. I'll be dead before that's a problem.
Right. Ok. what about our relationships with other countries around the world? Wouldn't that jeopardize our economic ties, peace treaties, etc?
-we're America. we don't need them.
Hmmm. Ok. what about terrorism? That would probably get a huge boost from nuking an Islamic country in the name of exploiting their natural resources?
-Terrorism? there'll always be terrorists. Tell you what would make it a lot better though. We should just find the terrorists, haul them out in the street, and shoot 'em right in the heads.
I think that would make the problem worse.
-No. Not if you take them and their families out into the street and just execute 'em all. That would take the wind out of a lot of their sails.
Okay. So. Let's recap. Nuclear genocide, international armed robbery, subversion of foreign governments, and execution squads. Not to mention the military takeover of other countries. "Might makes right?" I ask him.
He agreed.
"Is this what you teach your children?"
Yep.
-----
Damn.
The world's greatest democracy is wasted on f****** g**d*** idiots. peevishly self-involved ones to boot.
--the previous conversation has been neither embellished nor exaggerated in the slightest, nor did the interviewer employ leading questions or excite exaggerated reactions. somehow the interviewer managed to remain calm and conversational throughout. he remains as flabbergasted as you no doubt are.
Dan Perrine...now I understand you. now I understand.
highlights include:
-the solution to the Darfur issue is to let them kill each other. there are too many bleeding heart compassionate people in the world.
But, sir, women and children are being massacred by government-armed, American-oil-company-backed militias. American corporations actively destabilize, subvert, and aid in the corruption of weak governments in order to exploit such situations.
-it's not my problem.
But, sir, the price of oil would go up.
-then we should just go in and take it. we're the most powerful nation on the globe. why should their problems interfere with our economy?
Umm...remember Vietnam? you know, how completely impossible it is to invade and control a country that doesn't want you there? besides, isn't that robbery? we're having a pretty damn difficult time just maintaining stability in Iraq right now. We're stretched really thin. I don't think you can really manage that.
-we should have just nuked 'em.
What?!!
-yeah. nuked 'em and taken the oil. problem solved. situation stable.
Nuclear warfare? Aren't you worried about fallout, nuclear winter, radiation contamination?
-nope. I'll be dead before that's a problem.
Right. Ok. what about our relationships with other countries around the world? Wouldn't that jeopardize our economic ties, peace treaties, etc?
-we're America. we don't need them.
Hmmm. Ok. what about terrorism? That would probably get a huge boost from nuking an Islamic country in the name of exploiting their natural resources?
-Terrorism? there'll always be terrorists. Tell you what would make it a lot better though. We should just find the terrorists, haul them out in the street, and shoot 'em right in the heads.
I think that would make the problem worse.
-No. Not if you take them and their families out into the street and just execute 'em all. That would take the wind out of a lot of their sails.
Okay. So. Let's recap. Nuclear genocide, international armed robbery, subversion of foreign governments, and execution squads. Not to mention the military takeover of other countries. "Might makes right?" I ask him.
He agreed.
"Is this what you teach your children?"
Yep.
-----
Damn.
The world's greatest democracy is wasted on f****** g**d*** idiots. peevishly self-involved ones to boot.
--the previous conversation has been neither embellished nor exaggerated in the slightest, nor did the interviewer employ leading questions or excite exaggerated reactions. somehow the interviewer managed to remain calm and conversational throughout. he remains as flabbergasted as you no doubt are.
Dan Perrine...now I understand you. now I understand.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
