Letters to
The Crisis Papers
A note to our readers: We're eager
to hear from you, and to provide a forum for your words to be read by
others. Here are some helpful hints: Short, several paragraph letters
have the best chance of being accepted for publication. Sign the letter
with your name; we don't want to be giving out your email
address
to strangers. Unless you instruct us otherwise, we'll assume it's OK
with you if we post your letter, or excerpts from it.
Send your letters to us at
crisispapers@hotmail.com.
This page has retained letters
for the past three uploads.
Thanks. -- The Editors
March 17, 2010
A sampling of letters responding to Bernard Weiner's
"The Hurt
Locker": When Great Art Meets Lousy Politics.
Bernie,
I agree with most of this current paper, but I have to disagree on the one
point I hear and read in a lot of the "progressive" media these days,
including this paper. While I agree we need to "get the flock out of there
ASAP," I cannot agree it will relieve the over-all level of violence. I
think we in the West fail to grasp the level of complexity and the attitude
toward "the other" held by nearly every sectarian and quasi-political
faction, whether in Iraq, Iran, Palestine, Egypt, etc. The Muslim nations
are, to my view, by and large stuck in an 8th century mind-set, at least
those who espouse "pure Islam." And that encompasses, at minimum, all those
who hold a "will to power," of whatever stripe. While the Kurds are at least
united against the rest of Iraq, even then there is tension between various
splinter groups, and any unity is focused on a Kurdish state concept. Should
they achieve such an ideal (Turkey notwithstanding,) then there is an even
chance those splinters will cause even the Kurds their own schism.
I think we delude ourselves to believe it is only the presence of foreign
troops that fuel the violence. These are fractures that were held in check
only through brutal repression - witness Iran at this specific moment in
history. If the Shah wasn't enough to keep the lid on, what makes us believe
the Ayatollah's will have any better success, except through brutal
repression. Yes, some of the tension is because people really want an end to
repression entirely, and we cannot begrudge them that desire. But those who
hold power in that region will not give it up willingly, because they are
each aware of one central truth about the world they have all come to
inhabit - its either "us" or "them" and the consequences will always mean
terror for "them" as long as the central suppositions about Islamic failure
is grappled with, by those very people themselves.
I would venture should all foreign troops leave the area - Iraq,
Afghanistan, etc., the situation in Afghanistan would dissolve within six
months to near total Taliban dominance, with very brutal consequences, most
especially toward the women in that country, and to believe otherwise is, in
my view, to be blind to the depth of beliefs that exist in that region, and
most importantly, in that religion. Islam has never had their own
Reformation, and I sincerely believe until they do, this will go on and on.
I feel for those individuals who have moved forward in their thinking about
the world, because they will be the most at risk. One only has to look at
one thing to fully grasp our failure to "get" the depth of the problem:
"belief" as it is and has evolved in Islamic factionalism has given birth to
the most horrible weapon since the nuclear bomb - the human bomb. That there
is an unlimited number of people willing to strap a bomb on themselves and
become the delivery system is nearly without precedent, and one for which
there is never going to be a true deterrent or early detection system to
protect innocent people from the effect of such an aberration of human
"belief."
So, leave we must, but lets not delude ourselves - there will be a terrible
price for those we have offered at least some protection for the recent
past. I believe the question we all - progressive or otherwise - must
grapple with is simply this - are we prepared for the consequences we will
leave others to face? The political and economic consequences to the Western
world is our problem, but leaving the innocent without protection,
especially those we have not "trained and armed" is something about which we
will have to ask ourselves the deepest ethical questions for generations.
And do we have the moral stomach for that?
Notty Bumbo (3/17)
San Francisco
Bernard Weiner responds:
Of course, you are correct about
the centuries old tribal/clan/ethnic/religious strata divisions in Iraq
that -- mais oui! -- the U.S. military/diplomatic honchos are only dimly
aware of, if they are aware at all. But nowhere in my piece did I say or
even suggest that "it is only the presence of foreign troops that fuel
the violence." The U.S. departing may relieve the situation somewhat,
but the old divisions, as you say, will rise to the fore. Indeed, though
I don't think it likely, it is possible that once the common enemy (the
U.S.) leaves, the various groups will feel free to return to their old
antagonisms with even more vigor.
I agree that if the foreign troops leave Afghanistan, the Taliban is
likely to resume its extreme shariah control and all that implies for
women and those hoping for a freer life in that unfortunate country.
Yes, there will be a heavy price (including a heavy moral price) to pay
for leaving. But there is no good option there. To stay is to pay a
heavier price -- once again because the U.S. has no real understanding
of the complexities of that society (or any foreign society, for that
matter), and doesn't seem interested in finding out what those might be.
The military option is the only one worth pursuing, in this blindered
mentality.
In short, to use the words of diplomacy, we are good and truly f-----d.
Bumbo replies: Thanks for the response. Well and truly f-----d is right on
the mark. I do think the moral quandry we've been handed vis-a-vis
Afghanistan far exceeds that of Iraq -- there, we need to skeedaddle ASAP.
Afghanistan, on the other hand, presents us with a devil's bargain, and all
I can say is, I'm glad I'm not the one in the cat bird seat on this. Pity
Barrack.
Bernard,
I'm responding to your generous request for comments on "The Hurt Locker" at
the end of your article in Truthout. I was/am very much against the Iraq
War, thinking it one of the most idiotic, inhumane things I've seen my
government do. I marched against the war, wrote letters against the war,
threatened to leave this country, made calls to Washington, etc. My husband
did (a Vietnam war era vet) also and thinks the Iraq war is as horrific as I
do. Our son who is being trained to work in PTSD and CBT (PhD grad school)
thinks the same and marched against the same war with many of his friends.
That said, none of us saw "pro-war" themes in "The Hurt Locker." Not as you
described in the article and I think to describe as such is to miss the
whole point of the movie, which is a character study of three American
soldiers. It is not about the Iraqis. It is not about other American troops.
It is first and foremost about these three American troops and it's an
excellent character study in that regard. That was apparent to me as a
psychotherapist myself.
There was no "Top Gun" swaggering in this film. There were no heroics as in
"Saving Private Ryan" in this film. Yes, there was recklessness by James
which could point to any number of things (and psychologically I won't get
into that here but the movie gets into it heavily for anyone who is willing
to see it. Or is psychologically-minded enough to get over the fact that
this movie is not about Iraqis, nor even about American troops period---it
is about three very particular (and psychologically different) American
soldiers. This is being ignored so much to the point that I've become
convinced more than ever that even intelligent people in our country have
little psychological-mindedness about them.
To complain that this movie is not about Iraqis makes no sense. That's not
what it's about. It's not about any other American troops either. It is a
character study of three American soldiers. Period. That's it. (Oh, and no
comment in any article deriding the film as pro-war, has mentioned anything
about James' discovery in the bomb factory (with the Iraqi boy), how James
puts a sheet over him, carries the boys' body out and later searches for
whom is responsible and also perhaps for his family.) NO mention of those
major scenes in the movie is mentioned.
Here is a part written by one of my favorite film critics and I think she is
spot on and hers is the best reviews I've read (from Flick Filosopher--full
review can be found there):
The magnificently ironic thing
about Kathryn Bigelow’s The Hurt Locker -- an over-the-shoulder look at
a month in the life and work of a bomb disposal expert in Baghdad in the
summer of 2004 -- is that it doesn’t give us a rush. As cool and
unflappable as its decidedly antiheroic protagonist, this intense,
intimate portrait of the modern battlefield -- or lack thereof -- is
riveting but not “exciting,” not in the sense that action movies have
taught us to get turned on by the foreplay of countdowns and the climax
of explosions. What makes Lockera masterpiece of the action film, of the
war film, of the male-buddy film is not Bigelow found something new to
say via the pornography of violence that typifies the genres, but that
she found something new to say in the quiet motives behind the men who
inhabit these stories and in the surprising stillnesses between the
explosions.
This is what too many progressive writers
(mostly all male that I've seen) have totally missed. For that paragraph is
what makes Bigelow's film different, new and NOT a typical "war film" as we
know it.
In order to be "progressive" it does not need to become a documentary about
the Iraq War; it does not need to become a Michael Moore movie. It is what
it is and it seems that very few are "getting" what that is. Again, more
psychological mindedness in the American people would be a start to
understanding this film.
Sarah Sommers (3/17)
Bernard Weiner responds:
Yes, I think you're on the right
track. As viewers, we bring our own political baggage to the film, and
I'm sure I did this as well. And I must admit that until you mentioned
the scenes with James and the small boy, I had forgotten them, having
seen the movie many months ago.
Thanks for writing.
Sommers replies:
Thanks very much for your response. I
agree with you re: people taking in their own political baggage and being
unable to put it aside and I see this happening in most reviews of this
movie (except for Mary Ann's on Flick Filosopher. She gets it, I think. I
think you get at it in the review I responded to.) Also, it is very
interesting that you would forget the moving scenes with James and the Iraqi
boy that he finds in the bomb warehouse, etc. Why would you forget that?
Those scenes are ones (that for me) would not be forgotten, and will never
be forgotten about this movie.
Also, I think it is worth saying that progressives have constantly said they
are in support of the troops -- not the war, but the troops. If so, then,
this movie is a supportive (at least from a psychological point of view)
look at three American soldiers caught up in a war zone all for different
reasons and the impact this has on their psyches. The problem or fallout
from this war will be (for us) a very American one as have, and will have
more, severely damaged vets from this war, more than any other in our
history.
Personally, I'd say, any soldier "should have" (my bias) refused to go to
this war. That's not how 99% of soldiers anywhere would respond, though --
most soldiers go when they are called up. Interestingly, also, they don't
get into the politics -- they follow orders. Except of course for James. As
my husband watched the movie, he said, James would be disciplined so quickly
(but would he? Would someone be disciplined that quickly if they could
defuse bombs that well? Or would a blind eye be turned? I don't know.) My
husband (and again, as a USAF vet) said similar things we've read in reviews
-- "you don't go out on your own without back-up, you first of all, look out
for your fellow soldiers." We know, though, that in this war (and in
Vietnam) things happen/happened that aren't by the book at all (even in
terms of what is protocol within the military). Plus, "The Hurt Locker" was
a movie, a story, not a documentary. It had to pull you in some way and if
it could get you down the rabbit hole, so to speak, that's all it had to do.
Then the screenwriter/director could proceed to let their story unfold. It
wasn't plot-driven and that might be (I wonder anyway) why those on the left
or right complain about it. It was character driven. A war movie that is
character driven? What even is that, some might wonder? How to respond? It
wasn't political enough or maybe it was and really was pro-war or maybe it
was anti-war or maybe it was about three guys and what war did to them. Why
must the screenwriter/director make this a political statement movie? Are we
so used to war movies being that way and we have to put everything into that
paradigm? Can't think or see something new? With so few explosions and so
little "action" especially---as this movie had very few explosions.
It also puts the onus upon Americans in general to demand something more for
our soldiers when they come back with head injuries, etc. (ie, anyone within
a certain radius of the explosion of an IED will have some level of head
injury.) We have American soldiers coming back to our country with no limbs
and with head injuries, add PTSD to that and we have a generation that is a
mess in this country. What have we done -- not just to the Iraqis but to our
own soldiers? Can that be thought of without it being considered pro-war? It
needs to be thought of for we will all suffer as a result of it. From our
healthcare, to crime, to troubled marriages, to the kids in those marriages
and so on. That's not a progressive or conservative issue, surely.
One other interesting comment my husband made in the first 20 minutes or so
of the movie was, "Oh, man, as a soldier you couldn't trust any Iraqi in
this situation. It's impossible." As a soldier you could trust no one if you
wanted to survive, and the psychological and physical stress would be
absolutely horrible and very damaging for any soldier involved in what these
three were doing.
You know, there are lots of live bombs still going off and hurting people in
Vietnam. Where are the people (when soldiers like James come home) who have
the smarts to say to them, there are risky jobs that take your expertise
here and here and here? In James' case he probably was connected to no one
when he came home (no therapist, I mean) and he just was on his own (which
is unfair and why would he not---at least with his issues and
personality---re-enlist? Why would he not?) There is also survivor's guilt
that no one seems to figure in either. "I made it back and so many others
didn't. So I have to go back." Repetition-compulsion. It's something that
human beings do all the time---on various levels. The higher the trauma, the
more the survivor's guilt, whether the individual is in touch with those
thoughts/feelings or not.
I'll be the very first to say that as I watched shock and awe on television
I about threw up and I felt immense shame for my country. I also knew,
though, too, that those who were the American soldiers were in for horrible
things as were the Iraqis. As I see my own son working at a major medical
center with vets from this war (as well as other high risk populations) I am
glad that he uses an unbiased lens (as much as he can, even though he was
totally against the war) in doing his work. Partly as a result of hearing
his stories of what he and his colleagues do, I am aware of the huge task
ahead of us in this country with our own very very damaged soldiers from
this war. I truly think we have no idea the immensity of this problem. It is
sort of like we are all standing in the position of James when he pulled the
wires and all the IED devices surrounded him in that one scene. That's a
metaphor (I think) for what we are facing on several levels, I think.
Thanks for reading this as so many of my progressive friends can only talk
about the Iraqis re: this movie and seem to totally miss the point of "The
Hurt Locker." It makes me annoyed at my own progressive brothers and
sisters.
Bernie:
Thanks for the article. Well done, and yes you certainly hit all the "why
it's so great" buttons. And I confess I didn't so much think about who put
the bombs there and why as to just accept the assumption that this is what
war is. I didn't feel the Iraqi lookers-on were necessarily hostile, just
confused, lost and generally beyond comprehending.
I can see your point re the lack of political statements as to why we're
there in the first place, but I think we've all had our dose of that and to
not say it again seems to make a stronger case against war in general - and
human nature. Looking back, I think I was glad not to have to take sides and
to feel we could all share the same emotions.
And yes, I certainly appreciate the artistry of the artist.
Joan Sadler (3/17)
Belvedere, CA.
...Americans: Cool mutherfukkers.Iraqis: Stupid, crazy, silly. Yeah sure,
great movie.
Jim Arnold (3/17)
from OpEdNews.com
I agree. Although some may say this movie has a thinly veiled 'anti war
message' I say it is way too thinly veiled. Even though they call it an
'anti war' movie, it really makes you feel sorry for the military's side,
and the Iraqis look like a bunch of asses that deserve to be blown up by a
bomb, that is the feeling I came away with after watching it. This whole war
is a mess!
Davey Jones (3/17)
from OpEdNews.com
I do believe that any film that honestly shows a war is, by definition, an
anti-war film.
How can anybody look at the waste and stupidity of a war (when honestly
shown, not like the "embedded" media and glory-whores of the MSM) and not
think... "What the hell is this, and why are we doing it?"
Charlie L (3/17)
from OpEdNews.com
Beware of pachyderms in small spaces.
Whew! At last. Someone finally points at the elephant in the locker.
I thought maybe I was being delusional, but when Big Bern sees it, too, I am
now confident that it was no hallucination.
I have no problem with the positive portrayal of the troops. (Despite being
"unstable", the main character is definitely a good guy). Good guys get
caught up in bad wars, too. Usually, it seems, more often than bad guys (who
are more prone to take a pass and let the next guy fight the war they so
vocally support).
No, the problem is the movie proclaims by its silence and pictorial
statements that the war is just, for how could a war that pits such good
guys against such obvious bad guys be unjust? Its silence on the reasons for
our being there is deafening, and leaves us to focus exclusively on the
goodness and heroism of our troops for justification.
E.g., in several scenes the Iraqi enemy is portrayed as being sneaky,
tricky, and an immoral bastard generally (with an occasional good,
soccer-playing, huckster, kid, who hasn't been spoilt by the jihadists yet,
amongst them every now and again), with clear unequivocal divisions between
the evil Iraqi terrorists and the saintly Americans. The Americans may have
been driven a little bit crazy by the Iraqi buggers, but they still stand
their superior moral ground.
To its credit, there are some nuances, like the sniper scene where it is not
at all clear who the bad guys and good guys are, much more typical of war.
I agree, the "Hurt Locker" IS a good movie, and it should never be mandated
that all movies must be "right". Just as long as others have the freedom to
say why they are not, even in the frustrating INSHANNITY and Colmes kinda
way that is our created reality.
SnoopDopeyDogg (3/17)
from SmirkingChimp.com
Let's Get Real Here.
"Perhaps just because I just came off The Hurt Locker and I'm thinking of
the war and I think it's a deplorable situation. It's a great medium in
which to speak about that," Bigelow said. "This is a war that cannot be
won. Why are we sending troops over there? Well, the only medium I
have, the only opportunity I have, is to use film. There will always be
issues I care about." (emphasis supplied)
Really? Seems to me the Iraq war itself is a great platform for Hollywood as
a whole to make a quick billion --no different than all the other industrial
segments that benefit. No, they are not selling guns that kill, just
leveraging the killing in to profit and wealth.
That's okay, it is "art" making a "political" statement.
Bullshit.
How much of the personal wealth gained from this "political art" is Bigelow
going to donate to political movements to stop the war? How much to Iraq and
Afghan veterans funds to supplement the "nothing of consequence" they
receive in medical support for physical and mental injuries sustained? How
much will be sent to Iraqi citizens and refugees to help with their plight?
What is the "cut" for those who suffered and died to "fund her thought
stream" as the basis for this "politically artful statement"?
This is hypocrisy at its worst.
When was the last time Hollywood did ANYTHING substantive other than
generate wealth for the private club of participants and "make statements"
through their "art" that was anything other than self-serving.
Americans are enamored with the "cinematic medium" SO much that they truly
believe that watching a movie and then having "intellectual discussions"
about "the film maker's statement" is actually participation in the
real-world social and political process.
Meanwhile, nothing changes for the better, no real participation is
initiated, "intellectual" discourse runs rampant and vacuous of anything
actionable, and Americans wait on the edge of their seats for their next
"fix" of Hollywood junk food to distract them from participating in the real
world.
Nothing wrong with an occasional indulgence for sure, but since when do
American mass consumers indulge themselves in ANYTHING with self-restraint
and moderation?
It's easier to bow out of the real world and live through the movies.
Yeah, keep feeding the monster or better yet take REAL action and make a
REAL political statement: stop funding the Hollywood corporate machine.
After all, aren't ALL those shysters and mummers part of the 5% wealth club
that we are all trying to figure out how to take action against?
But then again that would take a little personal sacrifice and social and
cultural responsibility.
H. C. Jack Shaftoe (3/17)
from SmirkingChimp.com
[Weiner says he sees] "implicit pro-war politics" in the film? In other
words "I can't prove a fucking thing beyond this line so I've got to use the
word implicit here."
Methinks the author has no idea what soldiers are actually like. This movie
is probably as real as you can get with bomb disposal.
sharp-stick (3/17)
from DemocraticUnderground.com
Did you not read the LA Times article where real bomb disposal experts said
they laughed when they saw "The Hurt Locker," one remarking the idiocy of
disarming a bomb with a pair of wire cutters, explaining that would be like
a "fireman going into a raging blaze with a squirt gun". I can't comment
further on the movie because I didn't see it (and won't), but I have read a
few of the criticisms of it by technical people.
icee (3/17)
from DemocraticUnderground.com
From ABC News report:
"Colomer deactivated more than 150 bombs in Iraq as a Marine explosive
ordnance disposal (EOD) technician in 2006 and 2007."
He says the movie's bomb-disposal scenes come as close as possible to
portraying the incredible danger, tension and, yes, the fear that came with
the job. "
dbmk (3/17)
from DemocraticUnderground.com
All art is political unless you hide it away. Once a work of art is shown to
the public be it a film, a painting, whatever, it becomes a political act.
Even a painting of a flower. By political I mean that it is invariably
politicized. The artist should be aware -- I'm not talking omniscience here
-- but the artist must be aware of the potential of their work to be
politicized given the context. If the artist understands that it is likely
to be used in an overtly political way, and then makes no effort to control
the spin, this is acquiescence. I'm not saying that this is the case with
Bigelow. So while art has no "responsibility" per se to be
politically partisan, the responsibility belongs to its creator.
ironrooster (3/17)
from DemocraticUnderground.com
There are so many reasons why I will not see that movie...
Is it art, or just violence-porn? Art brings redemption and healing. Art
makes change. Art is something you want to be around.
Demeter (3/17)
from DemocraticUnderground.com
No, Demeter, you can't JUDGE It, because you won't SEE it!
You're close-minded.
You don't have the slightest clue what this movie is about.
Toasterlad (3/17)
from DemocraticUnderground.com
I can follow Demeter's logic, somewhat. But is staying away from art that
depicts what it is wrong really the right answer?
Where I think your argument short circuits is that you seem to say that art
is not art when it takes place in a context or handles a topic you have
issues with. Even if it supports your view. An anti war poster cannot be art
either?
That would rule out any movie/tv series with any sort of antagonist or
antagonistic context. Can't watch a WWII war movie because Hitler was
responsible for killing millions. Can't watch a love story that takes place
during WWII either, because Hitler was responsible for killing millions.
Can't watch CSI, because criminals do horrible things.
If it is just because you don't want to be reminded about what is wrong,
fair enough. But you seem to equate the context of the movie with implicit
approval of said context. And in this case it could not be more wrong.
dbmk (3/17)
from DemocraticUnderground.com
No offense, but did you even watch the movie?
The movie if anything was a rather brilliant (with some acting caveats)
piece of celluloid on how war victimizes both: the soldiers who fight it,
and the civilians who suffer it.
The movie portrays how damaged and dysfunctional the life of the main
character becomes. How you can extract a "pro-war" stance from that leads me
to believe you were more interested in a pre fab narrative, regardless of
facts.
liberation (3/17)
from DemocraticUnderground.com
I see THL as very much anti-iraq war. The confusion, senseless violence, and
lack of a clearly-defined "enemy" all contribute to the tension and futility
in a way that to me, is unmistakably anti-war.
... I think it brilliantly illustrates the no-win situation our troops are
in over there, and the political side has been argued over for 7 long years.
I think THL would have been half the film it is if they got heavy-handed
with the politics....
Indepatriot (3/17)
from DemocraticUnderground.com
I concur. While not being overtly political either to the left or the right,
in my opinion, the movie still portrayed the senselessness of the current
situation. Some might mistake the hero's bravado (which is simply his coping
mechanism) as being pro-war, but by the end we see him for the tragic,
sub-human creature he's become while understanding it wouldn't take much for
any one of us to become that.
I also think the scenes involving the mercenaries and the plight they put
everyone in to be quite telling. While not explicitly passing judgment on
them, it's easy to draw the correlation between their cocky ineptness and
the shitstorm it brings down. The subtle fact that the merc's that remained
alive drank all of the water while the soldiers were up top baking in the
sun and giving them cover (as evidenced by all the empties on the ground)
hit me good.
While I wouldn't call "The Hurt Locker" a GREAT film, it was certainly a
good one, and not in any way pro-war to my eyes.
imnKOgnito (3/17)
from DemocraticUnderground.com
The sole aim of "The Hurt Locker" was to focus on one specific dangerous
task and the kind of man who performs it. Anyone who wants to put their
political stamp on the movie is free to do so, but the movie was
intentionally neutral about the war, which is WHY both sides are able to
claim it, or reject it.
That being said, it's an incredibly overrated piece of filmmaking. Decent
movie? Sure. Best picture? Ludicrous. At least three of the other nominees
deserved the award more (I only saw six), including Avatar for its
groundbreaking technology alone.
Whatever you think of the plot or the script, Avatar advanced the art of
making movies. "The Hurt Locker" was a small character study which failed to
completely find the character.
Toasterlad (3/17)
from DemocraticUnderground.com
I agree with much of what you say but wish to point out that it is hard for
a real war movie to find "the character" when the characters of war are
often blown up.
Haven't seen the movie yet, but have heard that no matter which characters
you decide to get attached to in the film, they get blown up.
And I am glad that it won, even though like you say, "Avatar" might be the
better picture.
It is time that we stop putting the political issues that confront us on the
back burner. Maybe it is poetic justice that just this once, some real
issues are brought to the forefront.
There will always be an "Avatar" or "Titanic" or a "Lord of the Rings"
series that is lavish and well produced, but whose themes do not demand
human consideration. I mean, whether the audience likes Sauron or not, we
cannot do a thing about his take over of the Shire.
But since an Academy Award encourages people to see a film, maybe this will
get people to watch the film, to think. And then to discuss.
truedelphi (3/17)
from DemocraticUnderground.com
[Weiner mentions "Triumph of the Will" and "Olympia" as great art, though
from a fascist point of view.] "Birth of a Nation" was also a tremendous
work of art.
Amazing battle scenes, the long-story format, new editing and camera
shooting techniques; it was D.W. Griffith's masterpiece.
It also had the most horrifying glorification of the Ku Klux Klan I have
ever seen. The politics are abominable, yet the movie is remarkable.
Sometimes you can separate the film's political content from its artistic
value.
Proviso (3/17)
from DemocraticUnderground.com
Soldiers are victims of the powers that invent these wars too. It is time we
stop glorifying service in corrupt enterprises. Killing on demand is not
intrinsically honorable, and while I don't doubt the genuine patriotism that
causes them to sacrifice so much, great sacrifices toward bad ends are just
a futile waste of people. Buying into that glory thing just cons another
generation into becoming cannon fodder for powerful interests who manifestly
don't give a damn about them. These are good brave people enabling bad
policy and the next generation needs the warning. You can be part of
something bigger than yourselves, AND achieve an honorable end by joining
the peace movement.
pundaint (3/17)
from DemocraticUnderground.com
Oh, don't worry, American troops will be out of Iraq all right, the day
after the last drop of oil is extracted from the sand.
begin_within (3/17)
from DemocraticUnderground.
Dear Mr. Weiner,
One thing about great art, which this film clearly is, is that it easily
becomes a mirror for our own political views when we don't just let
ourselves live unresisting into the aesthetic of it. Even a director of such
a film has the same problem, because film is so clearly not the work of a
single artist. Between script and performance and art direction and editing,
etc., the whole is greater than the sum of the parts (a cliche, yes, but
also a truth).
As a movie fan I feel blessed when such a film comes, because it is, in its
true aesthetic, so fiercely free of what its many interpreters will want to
make of it. This is what endures for the future - a film that stands above
and outside even its own creators' limits.
I was, in viewing it, drawn into the heat and the light and the tension, and
the fundamental aloneness of its characters, even the Iraqi standing there
with his cell phone trying to set off a bomb...
All inartistic political attitudes will forever pale before the grace of
such beauty, because no words or ideas can ever encompass what lives there.
Would that we had the courage to raise our politics to the level this film
reaches and celebrates....
Real beauty is meant to pull us outside ourselves and our limits. It exists
to remind us of the fundamental Mystery of existence. However hard we try,
such a film cannot be nailed down or put in a box or defined. That is why we
need to learn to give into the aesthetic of it, to surrender to the
experience. True art will survive all words, even poetry, which while made
of words, is not words at all, just as a sunset is not color or light or
clouds or sky.
Joel A. Wendt (3/17)
from Alternet.org
Dr. Weiner:
The questions you raise about progressives and art is an important question
to ask. It's similar to one we ask in philosophical circles. How did Herbert
Marcuse, the radical who came to figurehead much of the sixties intellectual
left, feel when he discovered that Heidegger was a Nazi? I remember reading
an interview where he said he questioned Heidegger about his commitment to
Nazism even late in life, and Heidegger refused to repent. Marcuse said
elsewhere that the totalitarian tendencies were in Heidegger's "Being and
Time" all along, just he didn't see them till too late.
I'm not sure I agree about totalitarian tendencies in "Being and Time," but
that raises the issue of whether there are pro-war sympathies or not in "The
Hurt Locker." Can the work of art escape the artist's political commitments?
I would think logically no. An interesting case study here would be Ursula
LeGuin's "The Dispossesed." LeGuin says that she did not write it with
politics in mind, she was telling a story. And many writers will claim that
putting politics before the story destroys the story, but does this mean
that the story doesn't express the underlying politics or political
conventions? I think this would be hard for an artist to pull off, though
the best authors are those who can really get into the mind of their
characters, so perhaps there's a chance there.
What does this mean for the progressive's commitment to art for art's sake?
To answer that, I think we have to look more carefully at the function of
art. Marcuse is a good reference here as well. In his "Eros and
Civilization," he promotes art as a means to liberation because it unites
together the ideal and material worlds. That thesis certainly needs more
discussion.
Jeff Nicholas (3/17)
I make it a personal aim to never put my money into movies made by or
starring people whose viewpoints are totally abhorrent to me. For example, I
will never see a Mel Gibson or Tom Cruise movie. I will not support the life
style of vile human beings (using the term loosely).
Ellie1 (3/17)
from Alternet.org
It is sad that an attempt to get mass asses on theatre seats to watch a
movie created to impress upon them the damage we are doing in Iraq and
Afghanistan and Pakistan and, and, and...is even needed! I and many others
have been watching the "reality show" for all these years, living with the
harsh idiocy of our acts of violence -- a sickening reality show that seems
to have no off button. Our military spending is ultimately stealing from we
the people; those are the funds we need in our communities today, as well as
the soul of existence. The masses of asses should not need a movie that may,
just might possibly, inspire and push them to get involved in a vibrant
anti-war demand that cuts war funding. And may not.
americansheep (3/17)
from Alternet.org
I first saw “Hurt Locker” several months ago at a preview and did not think
it was a great film. I thought it was okay, but was stunned when I heard it
was nominated for an Oscar. Thinking that I must have missed something, I
watched it again with a friend who had a screener copy, but came away
feeling it was mediocre and too pro-war for me to find it appealing.
I thought that “Brothers” with Tobey McGuire was a far better film on the
subject of the war crimes being perpetrated in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Still Standing (3/17)
from Alternet.org
Bernard Weiner asks: "Does one dismiss or boycott or
condemn their exceptional, exciting work because in their private life, the
artists are biased and bigoted?"
I ask: Does one boycott a clearly pro-environment, progressive, landmark
film because the owner & distributor of the film is the fascist News Corp?
If Frank Capra had made films for a Nazi-owned film company, and Capra's
progressive films helped financially bail out the Nazi movement, should one
have boycotted Capra?
I ask: Does one boycott the fascist News Corp's other progressive-politics
offerings, such as The Simpsons, or "28 Weeks Later", or "Slumdog
Millionaire", because paradoxically News Corp seems to offer the most
intelligent progressive art that is available, even though they use those
profits taken from the pockets of liberals to mobilize the legislative
dismantling of U.S. democracy?
I ask: If a U.S. president seems to promote an enlightened brand of
Americanism, at least in his image if not his actions, but in actuality
seems to be a Cheney/Kissinger sleeper cell psychologically engineered from
birth in an MK Ultra experiment to cement Bush's legacy, then do you support
the enlightened brand?
I ask: Have you not heard of Francis Parker Yockey's fascist "Third
Position"? Do you believe all of this is mere happenstance and not strategy?
Despite this phenomenon's recurrence?
Robert Wilson (3/17)
from Alternet.org
Bernard Weiner responds:
Those are to-the-point questions.
Yes, how DOES one support what comes from megamonster patrons of the
arts without somehow supporting the patrons? I don't have the answer. I
wonder if you do, or even if you want to. The obama question didn't
quite fit in here -- apples and oranges and all that -- but it's a damn
good one also.
Thanks for writing.
Bernie:
I wondered how you came up with such a fantastic review of "The Hurt Locker"
until I got to the end [your bio about being a film and drama critic] and
had my answer. Wow, really fantastic!
Diane (3/17)
March 10,. 2010
About Ernest Partridge's Essay:
"Ayn Rand's
Excellent Proposal."
Below: Responses to Bernard
Weiner's Essay, "Entering
the Scary 'Lacuna' of American Politics."
Dear Ernest,
I just read your Ayn Rand article at
Information Clearinghouse. Then I
read a little of your book regarding Progressives.
I am a 60 year old activist in Los Angeles. I ran against Jane Harman
for Congress in 1992 as one of seven Democrats in an open primary. It
was a classic case of the millionaire "insider" carpetbagger buying the
election. I came in third with no money.
Anyhow, here we all are today, living in the world since the events of
9/11. I am writing to you because I am at my wits end. I believe we are
in a Constitutional Crisis. And I don't say this lightly.
I have every reason to doubt the "official" story of 9/11 as do more
than half the American public. As you mentioned in the book you are
working on, the election of Bush was a judicial coup. Then there was
vote tampering in Ohio in 2004. Millions of human beings have been
killed or have died since 1990 with the Persian Gulf War, then the
sanctions, then the Iraq War, the war in Afghanistan/Pakistan. We are
now killing people with drones from stations in Colorado using joysticks
as if it's a high tech video game.
There is an epidemic of birth defects in Falluja. Israel used phosphorus
bombs in Gaza. Bush, Cheney are war criminals being patted on the back
by Obama and Holder and Israel's Mossad are assassinating Hamas leaders
in Dubai with not a peep from the U.S. government. The rule of law has
flown out of the window here. I feel as if we are living in a
totalitarian, fascist state. The looting of the treasury by Geithner,
Paulson and Bernanke in 2008 and now Obama and the Democrats are trying
to force a health insurance corporation bailout against the will of
Republicans and MANY PROGRESSIVES.
Here is a series of articles (6) by David DeGraw you may not have seen
on a website called Amped Status regarding
The Economic Elite vs. The People.
I have been a loyal (and very unhappy) Democrat my entire life. When Ron
Paul ran against McCain, Romney, Huckabee, Tancredo etc. I supported
many of Ron Paul's positions, particularly those related to our wars of
aggression and also related to The Federal Reserve (I watched "The Money
Masters" on Google in two parts regarding the history of money and it
was a real eye opener).
Obviously I don't agree with many of Paul's Libertarian philosophies,
but the personal freedom parts I can certainly understand. It's easy to
see why Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul see eye to eye on so many things.
My question to you is, what should we do? DeGraw suggests we should no
longer give our votes to any Republicans or Democrats as they are all
working for the same corporate elite team.
What do you think of forming a third party? I know we wouldn't win any
elections out the gate, but we have to start somewhere don't we?
I have tried to participate in the political process my whole adult
life. I have played by the rules. But I can never vote for another
Democrat again.
I'm very curious what your take on this is? I think people are ripe for
going to a new way of thinking.
It reminds me of the famous Einstein quote: "The splitting of the atom
has changed everything save our mode of thinking. Thus we drift toward
unparalleled catastrophe".
Warmest regards,
Charlene Richards, R.N.
Ernest Partridge replies:
Dear Ms. Richards,
I share your pessimism. Clearly, Wall Street and the mega-corporations
own the government of the United States. The SCOTUS decision, Citizens
United v. FEC, was the final straw that broke the back of American
democracy.
To make matters worse (if that is possible), the election system is so
corrupt that it appears impossible to vote the corporate stooges out of
office. If the ESS/Diebold merger goes through, 70% of the votes counted
in the next national elections will be on machines with secret software
written by right-wing fundamentalists. In other words,
our elections are and will continue to be unverifiable. Yet
the mainstream media won't say a word about this, much less investigate
it.
The corrupt financial system that got us into this mess remains intact,
following the bail-out of Wall Street with ordinary taxpayers' money.
There is every indication that another, greater, collapse is just ahead.
Meanwhile, the Bushevik criminals who lied us into these illegal wars,
violated international treaties, and dismantled our Constitution are at
large and unpunished.
It is a dismal situation, and quite frankly I don't see a way out. Not
to say that there isn't a way out, just that I can't see one at the
moment.
As for 9/11, I agree that there is reason to doubt much of the "official
story" -- the part about "who could have imagined that the terrorists
would fly airplanes into buildings." (C. Rice). I suspect that the Bush
gang knew an attack was coming, chose not to do anything about it so
that they might take advantage of it. They did not, however, anticipate
the scale of the disaster. I do not, however, endorse the "9/11-truther"
theory that the WTC fell due to a "controlled demolition." The available
evidence suggests that a coordination of a demolition with the impact of
the airliners is implausible. (My views on this may be found in
"The
9/11 Conspiracy: A Skeptic's View.").
So we come to your question: "What to do?"
I'm not sure that a third party is the only answer, though support for a
third party should always be available as a "pressure point" against the
Democrats. We might, however, take a lesson from the radical right:
don't just support a major party, take it over. Progressives should
therefore support liberal insurgents in primary elections against the "conserva-dems,"
like Bill Halter running against Blanche Lincoln in Arkansas.
Even more important, perhaps, than elections might be mass-movement
action. Arianna Huffington's "move your money" (out of the big banks and
into credit unions) is one such action which, if widespread, would do a
lot of "beneficial damage" to the banksters. The mass media should be
boycotted, and the word should go forth that the "official news" of the
mainstream media is no longer believed. Then the alternative media
should be supported.
I expect to have much more to say about such mass protest activities in
forthcoming uploads of The Crisis Papers.
Sadly, it seems that things will get much worse before we see much
improvement. "The establishment" appears to believe that there is no
limit to the amount of abuse that the American public will tolerate from
their corporate masters. In this, the establishment is wrong. Never
forget that we are talking here about (at most) 5% oppressors versus 95%
victims. The oppressors are using the familiar scapegoating techniques,
so evident amongst the "tea partyers" -- blame the gays, the minorities,
the socialists, the communists, and always, of course, "the libruls." If
the progressives respond wisely, they can redirect the public rage to
the appropriate targets. (See my
"Don't blame the tea partyers, recruit them").
I close with an observation that I have often made in the past decade:
Our struggle is hopeless. As hopeless as George Washington's struggle
against King George III, as hopeless as Gandhi's struggle against the
British Empire; as hopeless as M. L. King's struggle against southern
segregation; as hopeless as Andrei Sakharov's struggle against the
Soviet Union; and as hopeless as Nelson Mandela's struggle against
apartheid. (See "Where are our Heroes Today?")
No, I don't see a way out. So let's
find some and invent some, and then put them to work.
"The people, united, cannot be defeated"!
Ernest Partridge
Dear Dr. Partridge,
I am writing you today to thank you for your web site "The Online Gadfly,"
to ask your permission to make some copies, strictly for my personal
reference and study, of some of your articles posted on your web site and
other sites, and to share with you my own comment about one of the main
points of criticism of libertarian philosophy which you dissect in you
articles.
I was born into a very conservative, right wing authoritarian cultural
environment. In my early youth I adopted the views of those around me. In
early adulthood, I began to awaken to the fact that my natural bent didn't
fit in with my birth environment at all. I am actually liberal and
progressive in my inclinations and views, which was a bit of a surprise to
me. The gradual evolution, over more than four decades, of my self
understanding in this regard would have been greatly aided by your web site,
had it been available during those decades. Well I'm very glad to have
discovered your site now. Your analyses there help me put into words and
clearer focus things that I have felt for a long time and which I have been
able to only partially verbalize with the clarity that I'm now finding in
several of your essays and papers. Thank you very much! Your work is a great
help.
As I'm studying what you have to say, I'm finding that it would be very
convenient and helpful to retain on my hard drive copies of some of the
content of your web site for offline study and my personal reference. If you
would be gracious enough to grant me permission to retain such copies for my
personal study and non commercial use, I will assure you that these copies
will not be redistributed without your explicit further permission. The two
writings from your site that I'm interested in at this moment are "Liberty
and Justice for Some" and "Why Liberals are Not Libertarians." And while I'm
at it, permit me to include here requests to retain copies of your articles
"A Question of Loyalty" -- from Democratic Underground -- and "Ayn Rand's
Excellent Proposal" -- from ICH.
I see from your web site that a print version of, at least, "Liberty and
Justice for Some" is planned for site visitors in the near future, however
I've actually already made copies of the four articles I've mentioned above.
But, after reading your copyright comments on your site, I don't feel good
about keeping the copies without consulting with you, and if my request is
not agreeable to you I will delete these copies from my hard drive and
backups.
Now for my comment. The libertarian concept of "atomism," which I think you
critique very well, brings to my mind the case of our human bodies. We are a
body, composed of individual cells, that is definitely more than just the
sum of the disparate, individual cells acting independently. The individual
cells, which do have their individual sphere of existence, must function
according to a common identity, or else they will die along with the whole
body. Conversely, the body must, in its complex functioning, respect and
preserve the appropriate individual spheres of function of its various cells
or the body will again become disordered and die. The parts and the whole of
the human body are inextricable.
Cells that go rogue, wildly pursuing their own growth at the expense of the
integrity of the whole, we call "cancers," with the all too well known
disastrous consequences.
Now the question arises from this analogy, do humans, when we form a
society, create some form of actual collective entity that has a meaningful
relevance to the individuals in the society that cannot be ignored, except
at their natural peril? Is a society a metaphysical body of some real
significance? Well, I think that the obvious answer to that question is yes!
Commentators of many spiritual traditions, over thousands of years, have all
affirmed that, at some level spiritually, we are all connected, and that
that connection has practical significance whether we are aware of it or
not. In fact, it strikes me that awareness of our ultimate oneness is the
dividing line between the "every man for themselves" crowd and the "we are
all in it together" folks. If you are familiar with the Eastern mystical
system of representing the subtle anatomy of our consciousness, then we
could say that this dividing line is the forth chakra -- the heart chakra.
Human consciousness below the heart chakra is dominated by the illusion of
"separateness of being," while consciousness at the heart chakra and above
progressively opens up to awareness of our connected relationships with all
other beings.
Perhaps you are already well aware of these perspectives and their
relationships to the points you make so well in your writings. If so, then
let me apologize for my presumption. If not, then perhaps you might find
these perspectives a profitable new dimension to your thinking.
Respectfully,
Eugene Earle
Ernest Partridge replies:
Dear Mr. Earle,
Thanks for your kind comments.
You are welcome to collect any of my work on your hard drive, and to
print and distribute it as you wish. My only conditions are the usual
ones: include the author's name and the source (with URL) -- the Online
Gadfly or The Crisis Papers, or the journal if published. Also, if
printed and distributed, the note "with the permission of the author."
I require royalties only if the works are adapted in collections that
are for sale. This condition, presumably, does not apply to you.
I copyright my writings to discourage plagiarism. (I dare not guess how
often they have been used as student term papers). Otherwise, I am
pleased to see them distributed.
A small correction: the essay is titled "With Liberty for Some." I
briefly considered "With Liberty and Justice for Some" but then realized
that "Justice for Some" is no justice at all. "Justice" implies
universal application (i.e., "for all"). But "Liberty for Some" is clearly meaningful, if
indefensible -- i.e., "liberty" that is obtained at the cost of the
liberty and welfare of others.
I concur with your analogy of society with the human body. My late
friend, the novelist Edward Abbey, put it well when he wrote that "the
ideology of constant growth is the ideology of the cancer cell." I
explored this analogy in an unpublished essay,
"Taking Gaia
Seriously." As for "society" being more than the sum of its
individual parts, see Chapter 5 ("Good for Each, Bad for All") of
Conscience of a Progressive.
I would, however, add a caveat: while cognizant of the social dimension
of human existence and morality, one must not lose sight of the
integrity of the autonomous individual. There must be a balance between
individual autonomy and personal rights on the one hand, and social
responsibility on the other. The tragic error of both Nazism and Soviet
communism was to reduce the individual to a "cell" in the body politic.
Libertarianism commits the opposite error: a denial of the very
existence of a "society" apart from the individual. John Donne and John
Stuart Mill were both right: Donne - "no man is an island, entire to
itself...;" and Mill -- “over himself, over his own mind body and mind,
the individual is sovereign.”
Thanks again for your interest.
Sincerely,
Ernest Partridge
Dear Dr Partridge,
I just felt moved to thank you for some of your articles examining the works
of Ayn Rand. I came across some of her ideas fairly recently but I have
struggled to understand how or why anybody could seriously take her works to
heart. Her ideals appeared to me to be devisive, pitting various members of
society against one another by focussing on personal gain. I always believed
that any society would benefit if the members of the society work together
as much as possible, instead of competing against one another.
Your articles have helped to clarfiy some things for me. It doesn't matter
if I agree or disagree with ideas, I still like to try to understand them,
for better or worse. And your writings have helped. I enjoyed reading your
articles, I just wanted to offer my thanks. No reply is necessary, I imagine
you have many demands on your time. I appreciate that you share your
writings with others freely. Otherwise I may not have discovered them
myself. Many thanks.
Best Wishes,
Neil Thompson.
Ayn Rand was correct in one thing: When the true producers or wealth are
treated unfairly, they will go on strike. But these people aren't the
"captains of industry" like John Galt - they're the rank & file workers
characterized in American politics & media as untermenschen unworthy of
rights, representation or attention.
Gandhi's Seven Deadly Sins
-Wealth without Work
-Pleasure without Conscience
-Science without Humanity
-Knowledge without Character
-Politics without Principle
-Commerce without Morality
-Worship without Sacrifice
Fight the parasites that get fat on
America's fear! (thanks Rachel!)
baldguy
From Democratic Underground
I am all for it.....let them take their wealth and go
They could go to Dubai and live the high life for the rest of their time on
this earth and we would be the better for it.
For the truth is that they are the slugs that Rand talked about....they are
a tape worm feeding on our economy.
zeemike
From Democratic Underground
Have you ever been through a garbage strike?
Trust me, if every suit in every executive suite disappeared off the planet
today, the secretaries and other workers would manage to do their jobs and
we would never notice their absence. We'd probably think they were on
another extended vacation or playing a golf tournament somewhere.
However, when just one group of working people goes on strike, a tremendous
chunk of the economy grinds to a halt.
Witness the garbage strike. Trash piles up on the street, the whole world
starts to stink, rats overbreed, disease starts to increase, and things get
miserable pretty quickly. The bosses are soon forced to deal honestly with
the strikers.
Labor needs to rediscover the fact that it's holding all the high cards.
“The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in
moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for
selfishness.” JK Galbraith
Warpy
From Democratic Underground
Ayn Rand was a "counter culture" anti intellectual sleazebag bitch.
Her ideas are/were.........what? She is more of a RW icon than anything else
of substance. She now is somewhat of an oddity kind of like a Sartre, a fad
of the 50's.
Education is the key to the worlds problems
pattmarty
From Democratic Underground
You know, I forgot all about her being a "speed freak". That's just another
reason to dislike the "bitch". People can talk all they want about certain
"liberal celebrities" doing drugs. Just look at someone like George Carlin
and all the "substances" he abused. One thing you can't take away from
someone like him and others like him, are they were talented. Ayn Rand was
not talented even as a writer. Would anybody (in their right mind) classify
her with the likes of Steinbeck, Harrington or even someone like (that phony
intellectual) Buckley? I think not. She is nothing more than a shit stain in
history.
pattmarty
From Democratic Underground
The first crisis that will happen on "John Galt Island" is a sewage
crisis...
Imagine all that shit spewing out, and not a single one of them being
willing to dirty his hands enough to construct or maintain a correctly
operating sewage system to handle it all. And even if they did, who would
clean the toilets? Who would make the toilet paper?
"It strikes me that this may be the way we effect political change in this
country. You get up on my shoulders, then I'll get up on yours. Just keep
believing that it isn't physically impossible, and sooner rather than later,
we'll be free." -- Keith Olbermann
Berry Cool
From Democratic Underground
Excellent piece! I was just thinking about that crank whore: check out this
review of two new biographies on her pathetic life:
"Ayn Rand. Click image to expand.Ayn Rand Ayn Rand is one of America's great
mysteries. She was an amphetamine-addicted author of sub-Dan Brown
potboilers, who in her spare time wrote lavish torrents of praise for serial
killers and the Bernie Madoff-style embezzlers of her day. She opposed
democracy on the grounds that "the masses"—her readers—were "lice" and
"parasites" who scarcely deserved to live. Yet she remains one of the most
popular writers in the United States, still selling 800,000 books a year
from beyond the grave. She regularly tops any list of books that Americans
say have most influenced them. Since the great crash of 2008, her writing
has had another Benzedrine rush, as Rush Limbaugh hails her as a prophetess.
With her assertions that government is "evil" and selfishness is "the only
virtue," she is the patron saint of the tea-partiers and the death panel
doomsters. So how did this little Russian bomb of pure immorality in a black
wig become an American icon?
Two new biographies of Rand—Goddess of the Market by Jennifer Burns and Ayn
Rand and the World She Made by Anne Heller—try to puzzle out this question,
showing how her arguments found an echo in the darkest corners of American
political life.* But the books work best, for me, on a level I didn't
expect. They are thrilling psychological portraits of a horribly damaged
woman who deserves the one thing she spent her life raging against:
compassion."
Well, I disagree with the compassion part and the commenter on the article
disagree with the rest. I'm sure I read Atlas Shrugged as a teen, but it had
no impact on me and I'd have to read it again to back my opinion, but
judging by the people who defend her, I'm pretty sure Rynd was a sociopath.
"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick
society." -Krishnamurti
lib_wit_it
From Democratic Underground
As Melville pointed out in that really long book about whaling: Sharks on a
feeding frenzy will eventually feed off one another.
Marx said the same thing about unrestrained capitalism
The Wizard
From Democratic Underground
Anyone who believes that they can live independently, without any support
from society should try a few simple tests.
1. try making a knife or other tool. Knap it out of flint or chert. Your
ancestors did 13000 years ago. Try it and see how far you get. It is not as
easy as it looks to produce anything usable.
2. Hunt or gather your own food. Use weapons or tools you made since you are
independent. Bet you get pretty hungry. There is a movie about a young man
living wild in Alaska who starved to death by eating seeds which blocked his
metabolism. He did not know any better without a society to teach him.
3. Make your own thread or cordage. Gather the plant fibers and make usable
thread or twine. We will not go as far as weaving or making clothes. It is
difficult with a spinning wheel. It is even harder without that complicated
product of an established civilization.
These few simple examples illustrate how much we take for granted. These
simple, everyday things we use, like food, clothing, tools and shelter, are
the products of a complex, interdependent society. Primitive man did not
venture off on his own. If he was cast off by the society it was a death
sentence. As much as we prize independence, interdependence and cooperation
are like the air we breathe. We do not see it. But it is the basis for each
individuals survival. If a person cannot even do these few simple things
listed above, how can they claim to be the master of their lives and not
dependent on others? I am pretty certain ayn rand could not and neither can
her pseudo intellectual followers.
Blood Red Sun
From The Smirking Chimp
Heads you win
It's not possible to defend Ayn Rand's ideas. Her ideas of how the world
should work are pretty ridiculous. Her "philosophy" isn't a philosophy. She
lied about real philosophers and a number of people are currently calling
her a sociopath.
But her criticisms of our social and political system were always pretty
accurate. She claimed that the US government was composed of competing
criminal gangs, fighting over the loot. Based on just the last 9 or 10
years, it's a criticism that is pretty hard to deny.
You can make a pretty good case that individual achievements can't happen
without a society that makes it all posible. But if someone operates within
that social matrix and invents something new and valuable - does that mean
that it is OK to steal it from them? Is it ok if you only steal 90% of
whatever it is?
You can easily disprove the statement that there is no society - only
individuals. But that begs the question of who is the voice of "society". Is
the voice of that society supposed to be for sale to the highest bidder?
If Bush and Cheney steal a few hundred-billion dollars in no-bid contracts,
is that the voice of "society" speaking for all of us?
There are a lot of veterans that have had their lives stolen from them. When
it becomes time for "society" to give something back, there is no phone. If
you were able to call, what you would hear is a busy signal.
That "society" was supposed to be us.
And the fact that Ayn Rand was a nut-case doesn't change the fact that we
failed to do our job.
And as a collective "society" we don't even have any bad answers.
Gerard Pierce
From The Smirking Chimp
I agree with you 100% regarding the fate of the banksters. But you are 100%
wrong if you think they were the heros of Atlas Shrugged, or that this is
somehow a critique of Ayn Rand. She was rather prescient in how things were
going to play out. Look around you. Her "heroes" already have gone on
strike. There is no one left but the looters.
rvanward
From The Smirking Chimp
I've observed that too.
She really was right about that, but she saw the looters as coming from the
left rather than from the right. The book, strangely enough, continues to
play out.
It'd be nice if truly productive people really were on strike and hiding out
somewhere, waiting for the right moment to save us. Unfortunately, though,
most of them are right here working their asses off and trying to survive,
not collectivism, but individualism.
river walker.
From The Smirking Chimp
Ernest Partridge Replies:
So just who are these alleged "heroes."
Edison? Ford? Bill Gates?
Should they not pay a fair share for a support of the "commons" -- the
"whole social system ready to [their hands] in skilled workers,
machinery, a market, peace and order"? (Hobhouse)
Would Gates have founded MicroSoft if he had an expectation of earning,
not 60 billion, but a mere 6 billion -- or even 60 million?
Are there no innovators -- no "atlases" -- in regulated capitalist
economies with established social networks and free public higher
education?
Are you suggesting that if we abolished all government regulation,
public schools and universities, all taxes on the wealthy, and thus
allow the infrastructure to disintegrate, that an army of John-Galt
entrepreneurs would emerge from their "strike" to save us all?
If so, then where are they now? Sitting by a pool somewhere, muttering
"if I can't keep everything, then screw 'em"?
No, the mess we are in right now is not due to an absence of John-Galt
types. Instead, the Galts have purchased the government, arranged to
have their taxes slashed, and now are stealing from the workers and
educators who are the ultimate sources of their wealth.
Ernest Partridge
Nice, Also greatly enjoy your site Crisis Papers. Keep up the good work.
Mike R
From The Smirking Chimp
"So just who are these alleged "heroes."
"Edison? Ford? Bill Gates?"
In my own opinion. No, very definitely not. Arguably their only innovation
was to create a business model to maximize profit off others ideas. That is
not innovation in my book, nor from what i can read is it considered
innovation in Atlas Shrugged.
Your innovators sadly enough have pretty much been purged from the system
that promotes job training as higher education and safety and conformity
above innovation and originality. Your innovators in a word have been told
plainly and simply for at least the last ten years that they are not needed.
rvanward
From The Smirking Chimp
Edison???????
Edison, not an innovator, are you nuts? Edison was the tinkerers tinkerer.
He was constantly playing and developing new ideas. A better case for your
thesis is made for Ford and strongest for Gates, but both recognized
applications and made them happen. Ford loved building things till his
business grew too large for him to have time for much else. And DOS would
probably have remained in someone's toy shop if Gates had not recognized the
value. This is giving Gates credit where it is due while recognizing that he
has stifled a lot of innovation as well.
Atlas Shrugged belongs in the fantasy section or in the romance novel
section. It is not a serious work. The characters are all cartoons. Speaking
as one who has spent his whole life around mechanics, electricians,
machinists, engineers and inventors, I do not recognize any of these
characters in ayn rand's work. It resembles a similar, more recent cartoon
fiction called the Goal which has become popular among MBA managers and TQM
gurus. Like rand, there are no real world examples to prove the authors
point so a fantasy world is created. A lot of rand's fantasy is sexual also,
providing a window into what she really was dealing with.
I would not take Ayn Rand seriously except for the sad fact that real world
bureaucrats, salesboys and administrators hold her nonsense up as having
value. Some of these people, like Alan Greenspan, have real influence. And
Rand's contribution to their worldview has been part and parcel of the bad
times we are facing.
I have always been amused by the fact that none of the rand followers I have
met are in any kind of productive occupation. Greenspan is one of the
bureaucrats she claims to despise. None of the others I have encountered
have invented, designed or built anything. Most are salesboys,
administrators or educators. Not inventors, not builders, not farmers, not
doctors, not molders or machinists or quarrymen.....
Blood Red Sun
From The Smirking Chimp
Edison NOT one of the Bastards of Industry?
BSR, are YOU kidding?
Edison in his War of the Currents epitomized a "captain of industry"
ideology and the "new corporate order" in spite of his many important
technical contributions.
"Despite Edison's contempt for capital punishment, the war against AC led
him to become involved in the development and promotion of the electric
chair (using AC current) as an attempt to portray AC to have greater lethal
potential than DC. Edison went on to carry out a brief but intense campaign
to ban the use of AC or to limit the allowable voltage for safety purposes.
As part of this campaign, Edison's employees publicly electrocuted animals
to demonstrate the dangers of AC;[33][34] AC electric currents are slightly
more dangerous in that frequencies near 60 Hz have a markedly greater
potential for inducing fatal "Cardiac Fibrillation" than do DC currents.[35]
On one of the more notable occasions, in 1903, Edison's workers electrocuted
Topsy the elephant at Luna Park, near Coney Island, after she had killed
several men and her owners wanted her put to death.[36] His company filmed
the electrocution."
"In 1902, agents of Thomas Edison bribed a theater owner in London for a
copy of A Trip to the Moon by Georges Méliès. Edison then made hundreds of
copies and showed them in New York City. Méliès received no compensation. He
was counting on taking the film to the US and recapture its huge cost by
showing it throughout the country when he realized it had already been shown
there by Edison. This effectively bankrupted Méliès."
"Another of Edison's assistants was Nikola Tesla, to whom Edison promised
$50,000 if he succeeded in making improvements to his DC generation plants.
Several months later, when Tesla had finished the work and asked to be paid,
Edison said, "When you become a full-fledged American you will appreciate an
American joke." (At least karma took care of that one)
"Edison allegedly bought light bulb U.S. patent 181,613 of Henry Woodward
that was issued August 29, 1876, and obtained an exclusive license to
Woodward's Canadian patent. These patents covered a carbon rod in a nitrogen
filled glass cylinder, and differed substantially from the first
commercially practical bulb invented by Edison."
The list of Edison's "leveraging" from those he employed and of teaming up
with mega industrialist robber barons like J. P. Morgan and the Vanderbilt
family is a testimony of his "quest for profit and wealth" and speaks loudly
of shared characteristics with the Bill Gates types of our current
corporatist environment.
Tinker corporate industrialist elitist if ever there was one. Wealth, power,
and control were his bread and butter.
H. C. Jack Shaftoe
From The Smirking Chimp
Dr. Partridge,
We are playing with mythology here, but even mythology has to follow a few
rules: Santa isn't the one with the red nose, and he doesn't pull the
sleigh.
In a different version of bizarrro-world, your comment might be valid.
"No, the mess we are in right now is not due to an absence of John-Galt
types. Instead, the Galts have purchased the government, arranged to have
their taxes slashed, and now are stealing from the workers and educators who
are the ultimate sources of their wealth."
Following Rand's mythology, the Gault types do not purchase the government -
they tell the government to FOAD.
The guys who buy government are referred to as 'moochers' or 'looters'.
Calling Bush or Cheney (or the people who own them) "John-Galt types" is an
insult to Ayn Rand, an insult to the fictional John Galt and an insult to
common sense.
Gerard Pierce
From The Smirking Chimp
Wealth derives from labor, not from the fat-cat owners of the means of
production who simply skim the excess value from the backs of the laborers.
Marxism? You bet.
When businesses are turned into worker-owned collectives, life goes on,
better than ever.
Cosmos
From The Smirking Chimp
Ayn Rand was a reactionary who made it out of the Stalinist system. It's
little wonder she emerged as a right wing lunatic with dubious reasoning
abilities.
I've had plenty of discussions (if by 'discussion' we mean 'rolling eyes
while being pelted with boiler plate talking points and cliches') with
people who essentially say the same thing as Rand did. My reply is always
'let them build their own, make their own, move and sell their own without
using our roads and utilities and labor to do it'.
'Self made' indeed. It's just stupid.
Zengine
From Information Clearing House
It's astounding how the novel's concepts have been totally misunderstood (or
misrepresented).
The villians of Atlas Shrugged were akin to the Wall Streeters taking
bailouts, not the heroes.
If Ernest thinks consumers are better off without the producers, rather than
vice-versa, he should re-think his premises.
Guest
From Information Clearing House
Ernest Partridge Replies:
No, Guest might take a closer look at his premises.
Galt (etc.) couldn't "produce" scratch without his workers. And the
workers, conversely, could produce nothing without tools (capital), and
the skills to use them (education),
It's this "versus" nonsense that gives the whole objectivist/libertarian
frame away.
A flourishing economy is, and must be, a cooperative endeavor among
labor, capital, and government. It is not a free gift to the wealthy and
fortunate, to which nothing is owed for its sustenance -- owed in terms
of education, infrastructure, just governing institutions, etc.
Mark Ames does a first class job demolishing Ayn Rand's theories by
revealing their sociopathic underpinning. No wonder the Neocon Nazis worship
her - the sociopaths's Alien Queen. OR You can take the girl out of the
totalitarian hellhole, but you can't take the totalitarian hellhole out of
the girl.
Extended Chestburster.
'Atlas Shrieked: Ayn Rand's First Love and Mentor Was a Sadistic Serial
Killer Who Dismembered Little Girls,' by Mark Ames.
It's unfortunate that the US elite, the
1%, are so _very_ comfortable with the methods of psychopathy -
'Psycho'
trailer'
Ex Pat
From Information Clearing House
The “captains of industry” – the “producers of wealth”? Come on! The rich do
not produce anything. It is the workers they exploit who produce everything.
Ayn Rand and her followers came as close as they will get to her dream of
unregulated capitalism with the fools who got us into the current crisis.
Oh, well, there were earlier periods too: remember the sixteen hour day,
child labor, etc. Those where the good old days of unregulated capitalism.
Connie Freeman
From Information Clearing House
I concur with Ernest Partridge, wholeheartedly.
Ayn Rand and Atlas Shrugs other sympathetic Jezebelian maids of elitist
honor should dutifully go to the heads of their respective classes
immediately, to be adored, worshipped if you will allow the expression. Why
Not, they have achieved the and get face time with kings, queens, dukes,
duchesses, Barons, Sheiks, Counts, Lords and sirs madams and ladies of the
uppermost crusts of modern civilisation, why not give credit where credit is
due and say that such a glorious ascension from being on strike to ruling
the planet is worthy of some pause for reflection....
Good on you Ayn Rand and if I may be so bold, to Pamela Geller, her muse and
avatar modern elitist culture. Both bare the moniker made infamous by Ayn
Rand's book, Atlas shrugs, which I have not read, but can imagine from
reviews is a ribald polemic that Alan Greenspan and John Keynes both would
appreciate, given their resulting worship at such an altar as she obviously
did, Good on all of you, by the looks of things the plan is hapeig upte
[sic] nicely and in keeping with former empire protocols it seems to be all
over but the shouting, or the gloating, but there are signs o tat in the
air, Geller's diatribes notwithstanding, Ms Rand has left an indelible mark
on DC pop culture.
jerrygates7
From Information Clearing House
I remember how enraged I was when I first read Ayn Rand. A gullible fourteen
year old who knew nothing of politics or high finance or much of anything
else. I look back now and realize how ignorant and inexperienced Ayn Rand
was (and is).
The idea that a few strong willed, selfish, self centered people can make a
society is stupid.
Ayn Rand and all of her followers are idiots.
Republicans are idiots.
davr
From Information Clearing House
So government created the infrastructure that make industrialists
prosperous? Really? Government did not create the mail service. It stole it
from Lysander Spooner (American Mail Co.).
Government is people who have been given the power of the gun, i.e., the
power to tell everyone else what to do, e.g., to initiate force against
non-violent people who don't follow orders (laws) and submit to having their
lives controlled. Did government create the educational system which
provided the workers? No! There was NO public education system when the
industrial revolution began here. And yet we were one of the BEST educated
country's in the world. Education started downhill a century ago with
government interference. Private charity and education were doing a great
job until they were severely weakened by tax sponsored competition. You
claim government is the prime mover? Where does it get its money? It does
not create it. It first has to steal it from the prime movers.
Wealth must be created before government can exist. The purpose of
government was to protect individuals wealth, rights, and private property.
It was an experiment never tried before. Our Founding Fathers were a group
of free-thinking intellectuals who wanted to protect the freedom created by
the American Revolution. They feared political power. They had just lost
friends and property in a bloody war to destroy a government. They did not
want a government like all the ones of the past. They knew men of good will
would be corrupted by political power. So they created a small, weak
government with very limited powers. It was not convenient for those who
wanted to use political power for their ends.
A counter revolution started in 1787 and succeeded in 1789. It has been all
down hill from there, meaning the American people have lost their freedom
steadily ever since, until we live in one of the highest taxed and
controlled societies. And you guys want more of the same, e.g., less
economic freedom and more government control. You watched the slow 75 year
decline of the USSR and learned nothing. You blame every economic crisis on
Capitalism and not on the industrial/military complex that Ike warned you
about. You snarl at all warnings, no matter how well reasoned, as
"ignorant", "inexperienced", "idiotic", and "stupid". You are getting what
you want. The problem is I am getting it also because you won't be happy
until YOUR vision is forced down everyone's throat. You can't stand the
thought of a "Galt's Gulch". It might succeed. And then who will be
ignorant, inexperienced, idiotic, and stupid?
Guest
From Information Clearing House
Sell it to the Cato Institute, where it will be appreciated.
Harvey Reading
From Information Clearing House
Like the author of the article said, it's a great idea. Let em go. I won't
shed any tears, trust me.
Maybe they don't want to do it because they know they wouldn't last a year
with no one to exploit. With no one to labor for them, to protect them, to
produce and move their products or to service their needs (heaven knows most
of these megalomaniacs can't do anything for themselves unless it involves
ascribing nonexistent moral virtues or using the toilet) I'm afraid they'll
have a hard time being as great as they think they are.
I'm sure the community that they form will be the epitome of cooperation.
When the first of their number starves to death, they'll happily fight over
the corpse. Just ask the people of Chile or Argentina or Iraq or any number
of places.
It's delusional to think that the private and public sectors exist
independent of one another.
Zengine
From Information Clearing House
You have to have a government to protect private property. Otherwise, anyone
with a gun can steal your property. ALL of your property, not just a
portion, as in taxes.
The government regulates business to make sure that contracts are upheld,
products are as promised, and disputes are settled in court, instead of at
gunpoint.
Education, roads, railroads, communication, electricity, water and sewers -
all things that make doing business easier. All supplied by the government.
I believe that we, the people, should provide all those things and more,
such as medical care, to each other.
With 300 million people in this country and 6.8 billion people on the
planet, we have to organize in some way to take care of each other, or we
will, indeed, devolve into mass murder and misery.
Oh, and the government should give a hefty sum to those who choose to
sterilize themselves. Responsible people now pay to be sterilized, to limit
their families to the manageable. Irresponsible people breed freely, and
government pays for their spawn.
We could pay people to be sterilized, as a society, deciding that only
wanted babies should be produced.
This would be a government service that would truly improve society!!
Wage Laborer
From Information Clearing House
I have to say this sounds more like an Austin Powers Movie than "Atlas
Shrugged", but non the less for the benefit of anyone ever having read the 1
Minute Manager, or working in a middle management or senior management
position will understand that the greatest lesson in the book is "Don't
reach for all the chips on the table before you actually earn them"! This is
a lesson that most every CEO, middle, and senior manager since Reagan needs
to learn. I guess they never read the book.
Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged", and the "Fountainhead" are classics, but when
they are used for "How To" Bibles they become dangerous mainly because of
the price of real estate in Galt's Gulch - as we are all finding out! By the
way Galt's Gulch sit's in the middle of Manhattan, on a street named after a
Wall.
Angel Gabriel
From Information Clearing House
Guest, That small weak government with very limited powers is run amok now
and the industrialists own and run it, It's theirs. America is gone we live
in MERCA now. It is the industrialists prize possession, brother, they LOVE
the DC scene, trips around the world and all of them just got a raise from
the Supreme Court, and we got demoted, this isnt government doing this dirt
to us its the industrialists and their bankers and mercs, Get it Guest MERCA,
mercs..... It's over, keep you voice down, I'm trying to die.
Don't get me wrong, I love these people too always made my living working
for the big shots and their expensive tastes, but you also get to see the
other side sometimes and learn that what industrialism was, isn't what it is
now, these guys and dolls aren't wildcat oil drillers anymore, they are
traders, investors and marketeers of markets, not the industrialists of
Rand's day, but a completely morphed breed of IPO and merger addicts, it's
about doing deals and making money on even horrible decisions, and Guest, to
be honest, when Blankfein says that he had "professional investors who
wanted these positions" he would mean those invested in Lehman, GM, fannie
and freddie and such, owners of businesses are industrialists, but they are
deconstructing weak government and were when Bush was in office and Clinton,
now Obama, this isnt about fear of political power by revolutionaries who
seek freedom if your talking about the industrialists of today as relative
to our weak government.
Today's industrialists are vultures with bad debts to pay down so their
fleecing us and the Treasury, not the other way around.
jerrygates7
From Information Clearing House
About Bernard Weiner's Essay:
"Entering the
Scary 'Lacuna' of American Politics."
Weiner wrote: "To even favorably mention the concept of condominiums [in
the 1950s] was to be flagged as a 'socialist' or 'communist.' Same risk of
penalties."
As the Author mentioned, in the old South, Communism was hated back then,
and was seen as being in league with the devil himself. So were black folks
and so were "Yankees" unless they were your owner-bosses and paid your
wages. Even any form of secular humanism or advocates of social reform were
seen as being in league with Communism.
I grew up in the racist South of the 1950s. There was this unthinking,
compliant mindless right wing hatred of anything that hinted of Communism.
Capitalists interests ruled the South with an iron fist then. You spent
years of being broken down with public school discipline. Then you were
drafted into the military at age 18 and went through basic training and
service and then back home to the factory. On your only time off from work,
you went to the Bible belt churches where you were promised your reward in
heaven for your suffering on earth, but after your death.
Now, we can beat up on the South for being a haven of ignorance, and we
would be very correct, but the Northeast was not too far removed from the
above ways of thinking during those days.
When Kennedy was first elected, he was not nearly as popular as some people
think. The Republicans painted him as a "Roman" Catholic who would take his
orders from the pope in Rome. And when he bucked the idea of an invasion of
Cuba and a war in Vietnam, this confirmed fascist notions about him being
dangerous for the nation.
You see, we Americans are of two minds simultaneously inside the US...even
schizophrenic. [[ Here and below, I think he means "schizoid." -- B.W. ]] We
desire the benefits of a peaceful world and claim to seek peace at every
turn, and we often go to war with the claim that we are fighting for peace.
On the other hand, we take pride in producing the most and the best weaponry
in the entire world, and using it to enforce our will with deadly violence
upon other selected nations around the world...in the name of peace and
freedom.
So, for the sane folks in the US masses, this situation is an intolerable
one. To cope with the paradox which most believe they are powerless to
change, they simply turn themselves and their minds off as far as seeing the
greater picture is concerned.
If they allow themselves take a quick glance, the picture is so stunningly
inconsistent and paradoxical, that it is shocking to the senses. And they
are forced to continue living and working within this system.
So, they turn themselves off.
However, this turned-off attitude is even worse. In the sane, it creates a
desperate desire for consistency in a single belief system that is not
totally schizophrenic.
So, when the rulers and their paid pundits start preaching that we should
move increasingly toward fascism and war and militarism and repression, and
then give us apparent enemies to hate (often without adequate basis or
reasoning), the masses fall lockstep in line behind these folks. They seek
to believe a single story even a fantasy of phantasm, just as many believe
the parables within their religions as outright truths.
So, the search for sanity in their political world is ironically what might
be driving the masses into the arms of the fascists who have presently taken
power inside the US, and are driving our nation on an insane course.
Presently, the weight of the pendulum is heavily loaded on its hard swing to
the right. However, the lack of good sense and irrationality and lack of
logic or reason is beginning to tell on the goals of our right wing
fascists. With our huge amounts of debt and with the terrible hubris we have
created around the world, and with the decline of our infrastructure and our
jobs and banking malfeasance, we can easily see that the right is moving
toward a point where it will eventually crumble and completely discredit
itself and its ideals.
To try to save the situation that is before us, in my opinion, is hopeless.
It is going to hell in a hand basket, and even the fascists themselves are
powerless to stop it because they cannot now rein in the many demons they
set free with deregulation and preemptive war.
Now, here is what I think liberals and reasonable-thinking, peace-motivated,
non-fascists need to be unifying behind. We need to be unifying behind a
banner of a land ruled by reasonable laws (based on the Constitution and a
separation of powers of the branches of government). We must be behind
reasonable regulation of banking and trade and business that will favor our
nation. Financial accountability and peaceful coexistence with other nations
of the earth.
We need to further control our own US based global corporations to make sure
they are working first of all in the interest of our nation itself
--certainly not a popular idea anymore.
In other words Nationalism.
I know. I know. Nationalism has become a nasty word during the last few
decades as our leaders try to move toward a new world order with themselves
running it. However, the right kind of Nationalism is still a worthwhile
ideal. The US nation itself is not a very viable entity without the support
of its states. Neither will any kind of world order be very viable if one
state is running roughshod over the rest. So the present NWO ideal is really
very invalid at this present time. However, one doubts if it will ever be
implemented very well without the complete approval of the world itself, and
folks, that ain't gonna ever happen.
So, we liberals are in a position where we must wait for the coming decline
and fall before starting to put things back together again in a reasonable
manner. What we are doing now is the right thing to do. Discussing and
thinking things through so we will know which way we want to go when we have
to pick up the pieces after the fall, if that is even possible.
johndamos (3/9)
from SmirkingChimp.com
Thus far, it hasn't mattered one little weiner whether progressives deplore,
decry or even peacefully street-protest the halfascist Obushist regimes.
Vic Anderson (3/3)
from Truthout.org
March 4, 2010
About Bernard Weiner's essay,
"Can the Ticking
Middle East Conflict Be Defused?"
Dear Bernard Weiner:
The logical end run -- a solution to the conflict -- as you have presented
depends on a third party with enforcement power. None currently exists.
Third parties of course exist, but not with the necessary power to enforce a
solution. Can, therefore, each, a third party and enforcement, be seen as
separate entities yet acting in unison on the matter?
Enforcement is the crux, whether its origin is separate or not. Since you
can't force two parties to engage willingly, it has to be made attractive.
There are two kinds of bait: gun to the head or gifts. The gun is ruled out.
The quid pro quo through gifts must make the parties feel that each has got
something vital to itself. If what is vital to Israel is the destruction of
the West Bank and Gaza and no other option is available, then gifts are
ruled out. If what is vital to the Palestinians is the non-existence of an
Israeli state, then the process has led to a cul-de-sac.
On balance, Israel presents as the more intractable of the two. More, it is
not alone: it is supported by a range of influential parties. The
Palestinians, on the other hand, have weak supporters. The supporters on
both sides have often conflicting vital vested interests. What other parties
might be present, other than detached observers? Those with a moral
conscience. A moral conscience is often such a singular experience that it
is hard to gather in groups while maintaining its integrity. Hard, but not
impossible. Harder still is directing that conscience usefully. But not
impossible. South African apartheid is a successful example.
The world now may be defined as global and with more openly competing
factions than ever before, but it is still inhabited by humans. Public
opinion, despite the depredations of corporate media, still exists. However
fragmented, there is still a 'we.' Not all of us subscribe to the Hobbesian
world that confronts us. Such a world assuming constant destruction can only
be of limited duration or it will destroy us all. Perhaps it will, but I
choose life.
This is about as far as I can go. Personally, I'm appalled and disgusted by
Israel's behaviour - such fundamentalism is, frankly, evil. My father was
Jewish and I make the distinction between the belief and its Zionistic
expression...
Alex Phelps (3/2)
Dear Bernard Weiner, Ph.D,
Keep up the good work; you need to be more visible on the web, media, TV and
all other possible places. Do not stop, you need to keep knocking every door
-- the answer will come. Both of you in your debate have put up very strong
undeniable argument and facts...
M. Asgher (3/2)
Hey Bernie,
You're missing the point entirely with your "moral equivalence" argument.
The problem is structural, and has (almost) nothing to do with whether
Israelis are good or bad, or whether Palestinians are behaving justifiably
or stupidly.
By structural, I mean that Israel is a Western colonial settler state with
its own Zionist version of manifest destiny. No matter how moral the
shrinking Jewish majority in Israel may or may not be, the imperatives of a
settler state (that wants to retain its exclusive hegemony -- in this case,
the hegemony of religion) require the submission and/or ethnic displacement
of an indigent population.
The notion that Palestinians need to "recognize" Israel is a complete red
herring, and a smokescreen for creating ever more "facts on the ground."
Israel continues to create more "facts" and demand ever more "recognition."
What they don't want recognized is the ethnic cleansing aspect of the facts
they have, and are, creating.
You want to know what would lead to a peaceful resolution. There is a simple
answer: end US aid to Israel. That would force Israelis to recognize that
they belong in the Middle East and not in America. Why can't they
"recognize" that simple fact? If faced with the abandonment of American
support, I suspect they will quickly learn to make the necessary
accommodations with their neighbors and the non-Jewish subjects in their
midst, just as South African whites have learned to make accommodations with
that country's overwhelming black majority. Maybe then they could host the
World Cup games sometime in the next decade!
Howie F. (3/2)
Bernard Weiner responds:
A big part of the international
pressure necessary will have to be the U.S. finally using its
financial/arms aide as leverage in getting Israel to change its tune.
... Your early point about Israel being a colonial settler state
("Zionism") assumes they are incapable of change. It won't be easy but
with a withdrawal of American aid, pariah status in the world, a
thousand cuts from Palestinians, an Occupation that is too morally and
politically expensive to maintain -- all of those might educate them to
change. Maybe??
Thanks for writing.
Mr. Weiner:
We've all been subjected to an endless litany of how bad things are in
Palestine. I won't dispute the veracity of these articles here. But, is it
possible things are complex enough that two realities can exist for
different groups of people in different places at different times?
Today, an article came out in the Wall Street Journal, and repeated with
more extensive photos (22), that seems to show a thriving, even bustling,
Palestinian territory, even in Gaza.
The Palestinian stock market (yes, there
is such a thing) was the second best performer after Shanghai's. There are
Mercedes and other expensive cars on the streets, and even Israel is helping
build a brand new city on the West Bank: Ruwabi.
What is one to make of this when compared to the utter devastation from the
early 2009 Israeli attack on Gaza, the rebuilding of which has barely, if at
all, even begun? It is The Tale of Two Regions, of the Best of Times and the
Worst of Times.
I've long held that a two-party state was a Straw Man, a useful fiction for
both sides to mask their inability and unwillingness to make meaningful
progress. I proposed a recognition of the de facto one-state solution here.
I said: Israel, whether it chooses to acknowledge it or not (or we do),
is heading toward a one-state solution.
So, knowing that, and believing, as I do, in turning a problem into a
solution, I propose the following: Keep the settlements, but -- after
thorough screening and background checks -- allow one third of the new
apartments to go to Palestinian families (the apartments must be of equal
quality). If the Palestinian families don't have the money, I think the U.S.
or international community could be persuaded to cough it up in the interest
of peace and interdependency. We've certainly subsidized lesser causes.
I've long thought a two-state solution - with "Palestine" bifurcated down
the middle by their hated Israel, was a geopolitical impossibility. By
forcing these two people's to live together, at least those who are
realistic, with a common interest in their mutual housing and environs, both
people would be moving toward the inevitable co-mingling of their
populations.
I think two-state proposals are disingenuous at best - from the Israeli side
they are a delaying tactic, since the concessions necessary for
co-existence, including disarmament, will never be met; from the Palestinian
side they are a part of a strategy of slowly, inexorably, pushing Israel
into the sea - I've never heard any credible proposal as to how a
Palestinian state (let alone one as divided as Gaza and the West Bank are
now) would be run.
If one had a magic box, and could place all hatred and feelings of vengeance
inside it from both sides, there would still be enormous logistical
challenges as to how to live in a parched, crowded, economically disparate
region. The first thing a logical body politic would do is to tear down the
wall, then they would improve the transportation and infrastructure. This is
an interesting thought-experiment and one both sides should consider, if
just to sober themselves up to the honest realities of the situation.
Of course, they won't. None of this will happen while each side is at each
other's throat. But, by sharing their neighborhood, a lot could be
accomplished. If the Israeli settlers just can't bear to live with ANY
Palestinians, they should be moved to Israel proper, willingly or not.
It is time for new solutions. The road map was a dead-end. The Two-State
solution is a geopolitical impossibility. The annihilation of Israel is in
no one's interest, not even the Arabs, who would then have to contend with
thousands of suddenly unemployed terrorists (more likely, Europe would, as
that would be their next logical stop to recreate their Caliphate - this has
been spoken of by Muslim leaders many times). Obviously, the fourth-world
existence of the Gazans and that of their slightly better-off but impatient
third-world cousins in the West Bank cannot continue. Obama promised change,
but lofty speeches have to be backed up by a concrete plan.
In the meantime, Israel and (some) Palestinian elements seem to be
acknowledging the facts on the ground and are moving forward. Make no
mistake, I am not saying there is peace in the Middle East, or that things
couldn't slip backwards, yet again. However, I think the current process may
be the best that can be hoped for. It is worth keeping in mind that no
matter what happens, if both Israel and the Palestinian people are to
coexist, they will have to interact, even become economically co-dependent.
...
Scott Baker (3/2)
Dear Bernie Weiner,
I just read your essay on smirkingchimp.com, and want to point out that it
is disingenuous to say: "Those are good starting points for a serious
negotiation. Israel wants security and recognition, Palestine wants a secure
nation-state and an end to occupation. There is a pathway to peace there, if
the will is there to find it and walk it to a peace treaty -- or, at the
very least, to a long-lasting truce."
As we have seen for decades, Israel wants security and recognition, but is
first determined to take all the land that belongs to the Palestinians. Not
only have many Israeli leaders admitted this over the years, but even when
Israel has agreed to stop building "settlements," it has continued to build
"settlements." The "settlements" are actually colonies, built on stolen
land. Israel has passed all kinds of laws to facilitate the stealing of land
owned by Palestinians.
Obviously there is no "pathway" to peace in a situation where one party is
determined to steal everything the other party owns, especially when the
aggressor possesses the world's fifth most powerful military AND is
unconditionally supported, and armed, by the U.S., and the other party has
nothing. We have seen that, for Israel, "peace talks" are just a cover to
use while continuing to steal more land.
Even now, Israel is recruiting "lost Jews" from India and Latin America, to
"return" to Israel, a place they have probably never heard of, in order to
bolster the "settlement" communities. Yet there are elderly Palestinian
refugees who still treasure the keys of the homes from which Israel
ethnically cleansed them; these Palestinians are prevented from returning to
their homes, because Israel has no respect for international law.
I have wondered for years how it could happen that, after experiencing such
suffering in the Holocaust, Jews could then find it in themselves to cause
such suffering to the Palestinians. After seeing the IDF slaughter of
Palestinians in Gaza, so reminiscent of the Nazi slaughter of Jews in the
Warsaw Ghetto, as well as the glee with which the slaughter was received by
ordinary Israelis, who chanted at soccer games about Palestinian children
dying, and sat outside in lawn chairs in order to enjoy the sight of white
phosphorus and bombs raining down on the trapped Palestinian families, I
think that Israel is morally deranged because it is a state for one people
(the Jews) only, just as South Africa was for whites only. And just as the
U.S. is deformed from its own racist history.
It must be this idea that Palestinians are less human than Jews that allows
the Israelis to be so vicious. Israel routinely responds to nonviolent
Palestinian protests with lethal force, which is proof that to Israelis, the
Palestinians are not really human. And since almost all Israelis serve in
the IDF, Israel has been training most Israelis for years to brutalize
Palestinians. There are Israelis who have testified to these abuses, most
recently women IDF soldiers:
Since being able to advance their
education has meant so much to my children, I am especially aware of the
pointless cruelty shown by Israel in not letting Palestinian students
leave to accept scholarships at universities abroad. I grieve over the
heartbreak this has caused so many young Palestinians and their
families, and it is evidence to me that the people of Israel who support
their government are despicable and cruel beyond words, as are the U.S.
Jews who support Israel. This probably includes you.
My sincere hope is that Israel will soon
be replaced with a state in which all citizens have equal rights, without
regard to religion or race. Palestinians will be free to return, and to
build, and to live and work where they want, just like anyone else. Many of
the Jewish Israelis who hold dual citizenships would find this unacceptable,
and would be free to return to their countries of origin.
Kris DeWeese (3/2)
Port Townsend, WA
Bernard Weiner responds:
You get no disagreement from me
about the outrageous, monstrous behavior of the Israelis. But my
argument was that this type of reprehensible behavior -- and retaliatory
strikes (obviously of a lesser kind) from the Palestinians -- will go on
forever unless the international community, certainly led by the United
States, pressures the parties to the peace table and oversees a just
peace, with the linchpin being the ending of the Israeli occupation of
Palestinian lands, including leaving the "settlements."
You had me until your final lines, when your solution turns delusional:
that the millions of Jewish Israelis who can't accept your one-state
proposal should simply disappear by returning from whence they came and
that those nation-states would welcome millions of Jewish refugees.
(Many Israelis would like to turn the tables and force the Palestinians
to leave and emigrate into neighboring Arab countries -- and those
countries do not want to accept millions of Palestinian refugees.) There
has got to be a more realistic compromise solution that will yield peace
and justice for both sides. But how to find it and stop the bloodbath
and repression that has been going on for 60 years? Certainly, this will
have to mean a new leadership in Israel, willing to trade land for
peace.
Thanks for writing.
Bernie,
I think that cultural extermination is somewhat effective over many
generations. Unfortunately.
The Europeans eventually defeated indigenous people in the U.S. by putting
them on reservations, forcing their kids to go to boarding schools, signing
treaties but not abiding by them, and for the most part, alienating them
from their own culture. The effects are lasting, as Native Americans are the
poorest group in the U.S., suffering high rates of alcoholism, etc.
The devastation continues, centuries later. Now, one of their few ways to
make a few bucks has been establishing gambling enterprises. Jack Abramoff
worked Indians over on that one. The Bureau of Indian Affairs was supposed
to handle natural resource royalties, etc. for Indians, who were supposed to
be too primitive to handle their own affairs. But, for over a century (see
the Cobell lawsuit), the feds mismanaged the funds, lost paperwork and
failed to pay out proper amounts. Consecutive Interior Secretaries were
cited by courts for contempt, and two special masters were forced off the
case.*
So. Can we agree that the Euroamerican model of taking another group's land
DOES work, nasty though it may be?
The U.S. supports Israel with billions in aid, weapons, and, of course,
bulldozers that knock down Palestinian houses. The idea that Palestinians
are in a fair fight with Israel is not true -- they are in a fight against
Israel and the U.S.
On the other hand, the Muslim world finds this conflict to be a raw sore.
I don't think any progress will be made as long as the U.S. blindly supports
Israel, even defending Israel when the UN wants to sanction it.
If a political candidate or officeholder even hints at a more evenhanded
approach to Israel and Palestine, there is a witch hunt -- witness the
treatment Obama got in the campaign when he didn't immediately pledge
absolute blind support for Israel.
So, there we are. Politics in the U.S. is broken. Of course, as well you
know, U.S. media is broken too, at least the media that most people
experience. With both of those problems, there is little way to change the
U.S. stance from blind, one-sided support of Israel. I think there is a tiny
move in the right direction. But, many more will die (just as many more will
die waiting for the U.S. political system to fix our health care system).
Dialog is still good, so thanks for trying.
Pokey Anderson (3/2)
Texas
Bernard Weiner responds: \
Hi, Pokey. I'm always trying to be
hopeful, but my gut tells me your analysis is too powerful to ignore.
Ouch. We are indeed living in Interesting Times. But I could do with an
occasional rest. Hope all is well.
Your Truthout essay makes a lot of sense...several questions:
1--Do you agree that since Israel is in the more powerful position today --
economically, militarily, politically ( USA backing) -- that if she really
wants a peaceful settlement she has the prime responsibility to initiate
those "gives" in order to "get" [[ Yes. And the Palestinians have the
responsibility to "give" in response. ]]
2--Do you agree that the USA is the prime international actor with the power
to move your scenario forward [[ Yes ]]
3--Do you agree that the Israeli occupation and treatment of the
Palestinians is a real recruiting tool for terrorism [[ Yes ]]
4-- What is the power base within Israel that does not want the kind of
arrangement that you describe. [[ It would take a very long answer. Short
version: the religious fundamentalists, the die-hard Zionists, the settlers
in the occupied territories, the hard right politicos, et al. ]]
5--Where are you located--do you ever come to NY?... I am involved with
Peace Action NYS and we present speakers on occasion dealing with this
subject [[ I'm in San Francisco; occasionally make it to New York but not
often unless someone else arranges travel. ]]
Dsnyclu (3/2)
But first, US redcoats would have to renounce our designs on Arab resources
(OIL) and remove our troops quartered in Their HOMELANDS; for Israel was and
remains merely one of our agents provocateur in the perpetual US neocolonial
schemes to the contrary.
Vic Andersson (3/2)
from Truthout.org
The Middle East conflict can be readily defused if Saudi Arabia and Iran
would loan or give Palestine the necessary capital with which to build up
light industry. With full employment, Palestine's problems would vanish.
But, SA and Iran much prefer their divisive policy of let you and him fight,
so monies that could give Palestineans a better life is wasted on weaponry.
brother_unknown (3/2)
from Truthout.org
With all your dispassionate reasoning why do you give so little
consideration to the one-state solution? Despite the fact that all the
(pro-Israeli) road maps have led nowhere doesn't seem to stop you from
clinging to them.
Eileen (3/2)
from Truthout.org
Mr. Weiner's response can be defined by one word: cowardice. He responds to
what I consider a clear and heroic statement with veiled attack and
cowardice, hiding under the similitude of reasonableness...
Anonymous (3/2)
from Truthout.org
The simple truth in this concern is that neither side is completely right,
nor is either side completely wrong. Both have legit arguments buried in
centuries of history and societal truths in that region. The problem is
that, with polarizing times come polarizing attitudes. In the late-'90s,
Israel and the Palestinians seemed on the cusp of finally coming to a
solution to this age-old problem. They had enjoyed a sustained period of
grudging cooperation, economic growth, and blessed peace and quiet. But the
global social upheaval of the last decade shattered that, and now new roads
will have to be taken. I find it ludicrous that there is an insistence that
any future agreements should be based within the framework of past ones. All
the past agreements (Oslo, Road Map, Gaza Withdrawal, etc.) have failed
miserably. Try something new, something different.
Anonymous (3/2)
from Truthout.org
Why are we tolerating the idea of two race-based nation states being created
in Israel Palestine?
We should be demanding nothing less than one state solution where all
people, regardless of race, religion, or ethnicity live in peace and
security.
Anonymous (3/2)
from Truthout.org
Of course resolution depends on Israel getting back to its '67 borders.
And of course rocket attacks etc. on Israel would stop quick enough if this
happened.
My understanding, however, is that, when
pressed on the matter, Israeli governments absolutely refuse to leave the
occupied territories.
So where does this leave us?
Anonymous (3/2)
from Truthout.org
The "anti-Israeli" Weiner so admires, and provides audience, represents old,
stale and boring news.
What Weiner found interesting says as much about Weiner as it does about the
writer, who, in complementary fashion, mirrors Weiner's clear self-boredom.
Specifically, what one comment described as cowardice, and I want to add,
"lack of any creativity, poignancy, or passion." A sad statement for a poet!
What's needed, as one comment courageously said, is something NEW,
DIFFERENT, and globally INTEGRATIVE. The "anti-Israel" statement was just
"anti." Equally lacking in creative spark, entrenched in in anemic, old
rhetoric. Sorry, Dr. Weiner, for a poet, you seem without insight as to what
true poetry, or change is about.
Max, Psychologist (3/2)
from Truthout.org
It would help a great deal if the U.S. government were to use the billions
it invests in Israel to help its own citizens in health care and home
ownership.
It would help if the U.S. government were to stop military aid to Israel and
use the money invested in that aid to help really reform the system of
education in the U.S.
It would help if the U.S. government were to end its support of Israeli
defiance against UN rulings and other unjust treatment of the Palestinian
people.
It would help if Jews would understand that criticism of injustice is not
anti-semitic, but merely failure to condone what can objectively be
considered NOT just.
It would help if Israelis could acknowledge that they are not victims any
longer, that they have the opportunity to use the precepts of their culture
and religion to lead the region peacefully, not overpower and dominate it
aggressively, earning hatred instead of approval.
Anonymous (3/2)
from Truthout.org
Evacuation is a realistic option
After Algerian independence in 1961, the French government repatriated the
million "pieds-noirs" to metropolitan France (though by then French
speaking, the pieds noirs were originally largely from other parts of the
Latin Mediterranean). That was reasonably well-organised, but even the
chaotic departure of the million-strong Portuguese minority from Angola and
Mozambique after the 1974 revolution in Portugal was largely bloodless. The
pieds-noirs were 1 million in a metropolitan French population of 50
million, the African Portuguese a staggering 10% of the population of
metropolitan Portugal.
The Hebrew population of Israel is around 5 million. One million are very
problematical Russians: there must be some suspicion that one of the Soviet
responses to the whining "Let my people go" of the 1980's was to stamp "Evrayskii"
in the passports of any of their career criminals with the slightest Jewish
connection, and ship them out so that they became Israel's problem (see the
Moldovan Avigdor Lieberman). An underpopulated Russia might be willing to
take back at least the children of those who left in the 1980's. That leaves
4 million, roughly the uncertainty on the estimated number of illegal
immigrants in the US. Were this 4 million to be admitted to the US, the
disruption would be, in proportion to the size of the country, less than the
repatriation of the pieds noirs and hugely less disruptive than the
evacuation of Portuguese Africa.
An increasing number of young Israelis are becoming "refuseniks" (refusing
to serve in the Israeli army) on moral grounds, despite the persecution that
results. If a few European countries started an accelerated asylum process
for such youngsters, they could start the world thinking along the lines of
evacuation of Hebrews from Palestine. They would also grab the brightest and
best, leaving the dreck in the settlements to be dumped back in Brooklyn.
Eurohypersceptic (3/2)
from SmirkingChimp.com
That's a very funny joke, Eurorohypersceptic. We could remove all the
Palestinians back to Jordan. That would take care of that problem. Most of
Jordan is Palestinian I believe, so they would fit right in. That way, the
historical Judah and Samaria can be joined again in the hands of the ancient
original people, the Jews. After all, Jews have lived there continuously for
over 4000 years. It was the Prophet himself that sent two tribes of Jews
from Mecca back to Judah, before murdering the third, according to the Q'ran.
The Ottoman Empire collected taxes from the Jews for all the years of the
Empire. Makes as much sense as your idea, Eurohypersceptic. The Bible, whose
books were collected around the time of the destruction of the Second
Temple, one wall of which still stands in Jerusalem, was the written history
of the Jews, written over time.
Did anyone ever tell you, there are no Hebrews anymore. Haven't been for
thousands of years. There are about 5 million plus Jews in Israel. I have
always found that anti-Semites have a hard time saying "Jew". They say,
"people of the Jewish faith" or "Hebrews". The Hebrew population of Israel
is -0-. How are you going to move that "one million" Russian Jews back to
Russia? By cattle car on trains? What are you planning to do with the rest
of the Jews? How are you going to force them to leave? Fortunately, unlike
the Jews in the 1930s and '40's, the Israelis are well armed, and you will
die before they do. When they say, "never again," they mean it.
But what was I thinking? How could I be so silly to think you might be an
anti-Semite?
If a few European countries started an accelerated asylum process for such
youngsters, they could start the world thinking along the lines of
evacuation of Hebrews from Palestine. They would also grab the brightest and
best, leaving the dreck in the settlements to be dumped back in Brooklyn.
Oh, that's why I thought you are an anti-Semite, because you are one. You
are one with the KKK, but not good enough for the Tea Partiers. They are not
as hateful.
MissMarple (3/2)
from SmirkingChimp.com
Self-referential name-calling generates heat not light ,
Miss Marple. A standard Zionist debating tactic is to redefine words, and
then throw a tantrum when they are not used in the way so redefined. Thus,
the distinction between the adherent of a religion (Jew) and member of an
ethnic group (Hebrew) made it difficult to obfuscate the racist essence of
Zionism, and so it became non-PC in American English (though the distinction
is preserved elsewhere, notably in Russian, where "Hebrew" is a recognised
ethnicity, like Russian, Ukrainian etc). Likewise, the abusive term
"anti-Semite" has been broadened by overuse to in practice mean "Gentile who
denies any claim or assertion of specialness by Hebrew, especially Zionist
Hebrew, activists", and is thus no longer insulting (Ditto "self-hating Jew"
if the Zionist's opponent is Hebrew).
Bernard Weiner and esdg 25 (below) insist that the Hebrew population of
Palestine is not going anywhere. Currently known facts do not support this.
Israel loses more people by emigration than she gains by immigration, and it
would need very little extra encouragement from European countries to make
this trickle a flood. The Jewish populations of the great cities of Central
Europe are being re-established: I've seen this personally, by staying
occasionally in the same hotel on Praterstrasse, in the old Jewish quarter
of Vienna for 25 years. Official Truth is that the renewed Jewish
populations of Vienna and Berlin are coming from the former Soviet Union,
but if they were in fact largely coming from Israel, that truth could never
be acknowledged publicly.
What is Israel for? The ostensible reason - a place of refuge for Hebrews
(not just Jews) worldwide - is laughably implausible: Hebrews are far safer
in Skokie or Golders Green than they ever will be in Tel Aviv. To the
outsider, Israel's main function seems to derive from its refusal to
extradite Hebrew criminals. This refusal must actively encourage criminality
amongst those Hebrews able to build enough assets in Israel to retire on.
Hebrew businessmen will inevitably be emboldened to sail closer to the legal
wind than their Gentile counterparts, simply because if they get caught, it
means retirement in a beachfront condo in Tel Aviv, not a cell in Fort
Leavenworth.
Eurohypersceptic (3/2)
from SmirkingChimp.com
My statement about "Israeli Jews not going anywhere" was more of an
aggregate recognition that "facts on the ground" - be they Jewish or
Palestinian - are not about to be moved away by any form of ethnic cleansing
or political decision. That said, enough Jews do emigrate from Israel and
their numbers get muted by dual citizenship.
But, as noted, I do agree with you about Israel's and Zionists' inability to
view reality. Issues about Israel's future are not about what "should be"
but what "will be." And a part of the "will be" includes the very drying up
of sources for Jewish immigration to Israel.
Reality has all barrels placed at Israeli Jewish demographics. There are no
longer the large scale sources of Jewish immigration. Guest workers are no
more likely to leave Israel than Mexican labor is the US. As the Holocaust
fades further into the past, much of the glue it generated to keep Jews
together weakens. US Jews themselves are already at 50%+ intermarriage
rates. That doesn't bode well for Jewish numbers in the future even with an
infusion of interest in Judaism among younger Jews.
And through it all, the tide of Arab demographics by nature will overwhelm
Israel in time.
It's interesting that you mentioned Skokie, a place I know very well. Skokie
was one of the key counterpoints to Israel in the post-Holocaust emigration.
Skokie has the largest Holocaust survival community in America (admittedly a
far smaller group today, a shadow of its 1950s persona). And interestingly,
Skokie itself provided in some respects as rich a Jewish environment in the
later half of the 20th century as Israel...where Jews were able to be Jews
in huge numbers, but with no restrictions on others who wished to live
there. BTW, it wasn't by accident that Chicago's holocaust memorial museum
was built in Skokie, with its importance in the post-holocaust years.
...I have always believed that compromise is critically needed if we are to
ever have peace in the middle east.
I agree with the notion that Jews, like Palestinians, aren't going anywhere.
No political decision will have the impact of moving the vast numbers of
both peoples from the region.
But let's imagine the repercussions of a two state solution for the one that
would remain both Israel and Zionist. Would the removal of Palestinians due
to boundary adjustments have the effect of keeping this far more "Jewish
state" eternally Jewish?
I don't think so.
While it would definitely stabilize the demographic issues, it still won't
make them disappear. The analogy for me is the United States and slavery.
No, Zionism is not slavery and I'm not making that claim. But Zionism shares
with slavery the characteristic of being a monkey wrench in the system: and
even in absence of any discussion of morality, the monkey wrench will reach
a point where it makes the system stop functioning. 1787 and the
Constitution bought time for the US but that time started to be used up by
the Missouri Compromise and in the 1850s, the nation was spinning out of
control over the implications of slavery.
Israel, even a relatively Arabless, Palestinianless, and Muslimless, still
keeps a monkey wrench in place even in a two state solution: Zionism. And
Zionism will never be absorbed by the nation, will always fester.
Demographics change. Guest workers don't leave. An increasingly globalized
Israel with a modern economy faces offering the brightest and the best a
chance for citizenship regardless of their religion. And the brightest and
the best will no more gravitate to high tech Israel than they would move to
an overwhelmingly white city in the United States.
A two state solution would quiet the flames undeniably (although for the
life of me, I can't imagine what type of climate would be able to "accept"
such a solution today), but won't put them out or keep them from festering
until they build up again removed from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Zionism is a myth, as noted. And it is a destructive myth for anyone
regardless of religion who lives under Israeli jurisdiction. Jews themselves
would be totally feed by the notion of a Zionist state. As for security in
so doing, it looks to me that the very concept of Zionism has been
disastrous to Jewish sense of security and arguably Israel is the least safe
major Jewish community in the world.
Eliminating Zionism from the equation could hardly make the odds worse for
Israeli Jews given that the status quo is about as dangerous as it can get.
And getting more so.
edsg25 (3/2)
from SmirkingChimp.com