Dan's Blog

The Fall of Rumsfeld: the True Nature of American Society Creeps Dangerously Close to Becoming Revealed

2006-11-08T20:23:00.000-08:00

"Fighting the war with the military we now have, for our wishes have been fulfilled; 'someday' has arrived. Rumsfeld's cold, dispassionate reassurances have at long last been rejected; a military without Rumsfeld is the military many servicemen have been dreaming of for many arduous nights."

This afternoon, the American Public was informed that Donald Rumsfeld, the Secretary of Defense, will step down from his post. Donald has been described as the first "political casualty" of the Iraq War. I wouldn't describe him so; he hasn't had any limbs blown off or sustained any other traumatic injuries. Physiologically speaking, he looks fine to me. I will say though, he may rightly become a casualty, even so far as the physical sense, if justice continues to unfold as it ought to. We brought the Nazis to trial; we had better bring Rumsfeld and all his compadres to trial as well. You will find few men alive in the world today who answer for as much senseless violence and are responsibility for such large-scale loss of innocent life (succinctly put: genocide) as Rumsfeld does. Those few who can compare to him in this prestigious measure are most likely awaiting court-ordered death, and many believe Rumsfeld belongs beside them. I, personally, do not have a belief regarding whether or not the man should be allowed to live; frankly, I believe it is beyond what I am morally capable of deciding. I am firm in my belief, however, that if the death sentence handed down for Saddam Hussein is morally appropriate, then such must also be the case for Rumsfeld. Either the mass-murder of innocent people carries with it the penalty of death because it is seriously wrong, or it does not because it is not. Depending upon which of these camps you identify with, you either believe that the two men may live or that they both must be put to death. I don't see that killing these two men necessarily improves the world in any way, but -at least regarding Hussein- the wisdom of this American culture suggests otherwise, and I find this intriguing.

Saddam Hussein has been murdering innocent people for decades; maybe it was wrong of him to do so, but that surely didn't bother many people on this side of the Atlantic until very recently. Today, Americans want blood; they want to see this man swinging lifelessly from a tree, and maybe that is wrong as well, but I confess I am far beyond my province to say one way or the other. To strengthen our sense of moral clarity and build confidence in our judgment, let's take a look at some historical facts.

It was by complete coincidence that in the past few weeks, I happened across the specifics of the largest mass-execution in American History. 38 Santee Sioux were hanged in Mankato, Minnesota on the day after Christmas, 1862. Because I must have been absent from school the day this was taught in social studies class, I was ignorant of it and felt I needed to further investigate.

It appears that Whites and Native Americans had been peacefully coexisting in the Minnesota region thanks to two treaties. These treaties effectively turned nine tenths of the Native Americans' land into settlers' land; in exchange, the Native Americans were to receive provisions which they needed for survival. The onset of the 1862 winter approached after a sparse gaming season and meager harvest that left the Native Americans completely dependent on those provisions. The settlers, presumably having been adversely affected by the dire hunting and farming conditions as well, withheld the provisions and the Natives Americans began to starve. Little Crow, a Native American and Chief of the Mdewakantons, led his people to appeal peacefully before the 'Upper Agency' for what was rightfully theirs. They were denied; the resulting forced-hunger imposed onto the Native American culture caused the erosion of their peace-loving tradition and philosophy. So began the historical "Dakota Wars". After a deplorable but characteristically American chain of events transpired*, the crux of which was the Americans’ devaluing of a peaceful native culture's citizens' lives, the 38 Santee Sioux were put to death, hence the greatest mass-execution in America’s history.

The historical accounts I found citied a book by Vine Deloria, entitled "Custer Died for Your Sins"; it is worth looking through if you have the time, but I'm including the cited passage in case you don't.

"When one examines the history of American Society one notices the great weakness inherent in it. The country was founded in violence. It worships violence and will continue to live violently. Anyone who tries to meet violence with love is crushed, but violence used to meet violence also ends abruptly with meaningless destruction."

The author continues with a conceptual interpretation of American Military History, highlighting our war-fighting style and emphasizing that we have never 'lost a war'. Shifting his focus to peace, he writes:

"But name, if you can, the last peace the United States won. Victory yes, but this country has never made a successful peace because peace requires exchanging ideas, concepts, thoughts, and recognizing the fact that two distinct systems of life can exist together without conflict. Consider how quickly America seems to be facing its allies of one war as new enemies."

-Consider that these words were written nearly forty years ago but imagine they were written 40 minutes ago. Fascinating, isn't it? It leaves a lot unanswered about Rumsfeld, what the world ought to do with him, and even if what he did was, at least in our cultural context, morally wrong. This is the danger hidden in examining history, our culture, and the ugly truths embedded in both. Revealing facts may undermine the pretenses on which we’ve been operating the past 230+ years. Have we got the stomach to face ourselves in the mirror? I suggest we do so and find out.

*brilliantly articulated by "NACF Kilia"
See - http://nativenewsonline.org/history/hist1226.html

Living the Nightmare of American Democracy

2006-11-05T19:51:00.000-08:00

"You call me an enemy of American Democracy, and yet I along with only a handful of other Americans am even knowledgeable of what it means to practice Democracy."

"It is frightening when even college students relinquish their sense of curiosity and skepticism. I know college students who are confused about the true meaning of words and I know fear."

"Solidarity has been liquefied; apply as much pressure as your strength allows you to exert and pray to whichever God you serve that it is enough to reestablish our broken social bonds and recover unity."

These are my thoughts for the day. I became frightened when I read a few things in our college newspaper (Marist College), though I am not easily frightened. These frightening things were widely known, so I'm unsure of why they struck such discord; they did nevertheless, and, low and behold, I am furiously blogging again after 2 1/2 months of silence. Read my columns in The Circle (Marist's newspaper) if you're curious, read Chomsky if you're open-minded enough (read independent media if not), read Freire or Kozol if you're a concerned educator like me, but -mercy of The Almighty- read something! Remember the Downing Street Memo. Remember Alberto Mora's famous Torture Memo. (they call these things "memos", they must be remembered)

Remember your God; to do so, you must first know your God. To know your God is to know yourself, and you have no God but the one you serve. If a slave cannot serve two masters (Matthew 6:24), then choose your master wisely; you only get one. Religion, if it endeavors to achieve a relationship with something unobservable/supernatural, is as much an accomplishment of the mind as it is an accomplishment of the spirit. Both are gifts from our creator; both become cataclysmically toxic when misused. If your faith is tied to a secular agenda, you may very well be a murderer and not even realize it; better to err on the side of peace than to risk otherwise, I believe. I fail to accept that any man or woman who lived their life in pursuit of peace will, upon their death, be judged harshly for doing so. War has been around long enough for us to realize it is not altogether a good thing; it has proven most harmful, in fact, and will likely continue to do so. Perhaps we should try something else...

Feeling Encouraged, Dick?

2006-08-17T08:36:00.000-07:00

Justice is beginning to unfold for the ardent war supporters of congress: Lieberman endured the first step of becoming ousted from his senate seat when he lost the primary election in Connecticut to Ned Lamont, an event that spurred the mouth of our Vice President to share the following insightful wisdom: that Lieberman's loss encourages "al Qaeda types" who want to "break the will of the American People".

To which I have only the simple rebuttal, "Are you feeling encouraged, Dick?" Oh, Cheney. Your terroristic tendencies are becoming more and more undeniable with each moronic thing you publicly say. Let's ignore this al Qaeda reference, since the words 'al Qaeda' are essentially meaningless to everyday Americans like myself and may rightfully be seen as shameless prods of push-button style fear-inducing politics. Can anyone explain to Cheney, in words he will understand, the function and application of popular vote? How about the citizens of a state expressing their collective desire to dispose of a politician they no longer wish to have represent them through practicing the democratic process? I believe these activities lead to an expression of the "Will of the American People". So what’s our VP talking about? Who are these "types" that are trying to "break" precisely what took place in Connecticut recently? I suppose they'd be anybody who runs interference against our citizenry's efforts to behave democratically, and do you think this includes those who do so through manipulative tactics capitalizing on the people's fear? Sure it does; after all, that’s exactly what terrorism is. Fear-driven politics.

I have admittedly never spoken with or read the words of an "al Qaeda type" before, though my government leads me to believe they are mostly of Middle Eastern descent. Perhaps this is true, I don't know, but I don't think their ethnic background much matters; I'm more concerned with their motives and ambitions, their methods and such like that. For this reason, I have ascertained that this Dick Cheney, whom also I have never met or spoken with, must be an "al Qaeda type", despite that he does not resemble Middle Easterners at all, but looks more like he's descended from white privilege. Appearances matter less than character qualities and personal ambitions, or so any sensible person can figure out. In attempting to impede willful action through appealing to the fear of the American people, willful action as demonstrated by these Connecticutians and prevent its imitation elsewhere in our country, Cheney must be self-encouraged.

A Sharpening of the Senses - Rethinking the Things We Say, Trying to Decipher What they Mean

2006-08-16T22:13:00.000-07:00

I invite everyone whose critical thinking skills have survived the unprecedented barrages our civil liberties have sustained through recent years to envision an abstract scenario:

"Any social structure that shunts out critical perspective and slams shut the eyes of right skepticism is condemned to the undoing of itself through its imprudence and self-instilled ignorance."

Still with me? Try this one:

"Any participatory society that consciously leaves behind any of its potential participants, essentially barring them from the democratic process, is fundamentally weaker for its practice of exclusion."

Sound about right? They're sort of self-evident truisms, aren't they? (as if the opposite scenarios could possibly be true) I think by common sense these are proofed from corruption or distortion, but sadly, they are apparently not impregnable from assaults brought on by present-day power. Private power that serves no end other than to sustain itself is inherently anti-democratic when it intrudes into the domain of it's parent country's government; this is nevertheless commonplace in the modern world, and with the advent of globalization, the destructiveness of its antisocial side-effects is exponentially intensified. It is for this last self-evident truism that the utter necessity for activism has reached a state undeniable for those concerned about the world.

The more one sees, the more one understands; but there is very strong social pressure against both of these activities applied by those who possess inordinate amounts of power. An individual must resist these pressures and make a conscious effort to see and to understand; failure to do either of these is symptomatic of chronic failure to be truly free. One can easily become wrapped into an unsustainable routine of thoughtless consumption and operate under the false presumption of freedom without realizing how much freedom and personal power they have passively ceded. The freedoms to see, to feel, and to believe are the most hard-fought and precious freedoms we have, but they are also the most seldom used, and this is truly a tragedy. If you cannot effectively stand against what our corporate-driven consumerist culture suggests you ought to do and still maintain your comfort and contentedness as an individual, how can you honestly believe you have freedom?

"Support our Troops"
"Freedom isn’t free"
"Proud to be American"
"9/11 - Never Forget"
These are all examples of mantras repeated unceasingly throughout America nowadays that most mouths utter them without examining their denotative meaning with the brains behind them. In short, what do all these bumper stickers actually mean, does anybody know? I Do!

"Support our Troops" - a few hegemonic, ethnic-intolerance based wars are raging throughout the third world and are being fought by young American boys and Girls. I honestly don't give a shit that these young Americans are getting killed, or for that matter, that families living in these countries are routinely slaughterer by the thousands solely for being born with the wrong shade of skin. Besides, my life is too inwardly-focused to take action on their behalf; that would disrupt my daily routine. I did, however, spend a couple bucks on this magnetic bumper sticker because then I can say that I haven’t done absolutely nothing about American-borne global injustice and, as a consequence, I sleep more easily at night. It's pretty cool looking too, isn't it?!

"Freedom isn’t Free" - this one I honestly have not even thought about at all; I just purchased the bumper sticker, probably without even reading it (thought the flag on it looked really trendy). If I had contemplated it a bit, I would have realized how laughably self-contradictory it is. Freedom is, by its very definition, free; anything else isn't freedom (hence the root word 'free' -see how easy that was!). The expense precluding this bumper sticker's unstated antecedent from being free (for clearly 'freedom' is this grossly misplaced scapegoat) is 'aggression'. I'm not talking about the sort of aggression most of us are somewhat guilty of in our adolescent or young adult years; I mean grand-scale aggression, the sort that Gestapo agents and Nazi death squads were executed for at Nuremberg. In that sense, there is a good deal of truth to this sticker's true meaning: unprovoked-genocidal-behavior-directed-against-the-defenseless-
civilians-of-the-third-world isn't free.

"Proud to be American" - more truthfully translates to 'Embarrassed to be chronically insecure about myself'. I take pride in being American, even though all that 'being American' theoretically entails is being born within a specific set of legal circumstances and topographical boundaries. My feelings are hurt and I become hostile when someone implies I am (gasp) "un-American". My knowledge is probably completely amiss of the Constitution's words, or the fact that my America's health care system is counted the worst of any industrialized nation (effectively meaning the 'America' I am proud to be a part of is slowly killing me), but identifying with this spirit of nationalism works wonders to compensate my serious shortcomings in self-esteem.

"9/11 - Never Forget" - this is a tricky one, tough to nail down, really. If I forget 9/11, my mind will become entirely destitute of any dimensional depth with regards to current events, politics, and contemporary history because it is the only fragment of any such understanding/awareness I now have. That would be bad. I think also that if only I can devote all of my attention exclusively to the memory of one isolated historical event which took place five years ago, I can successfully tune out all of the U.S. borne injustices that obscenely dwarf the tragedy of 9/11. I'll also never piece together the naked truth that U.S. foreign policy preceding that event literally invited commercial planes into skyscrapers as the only means of a disenfranchised global community capturing the world's attention to assert its distaste for economic slavery and American hegemony. I'll keep staring at those fallen towers and perhaps 200,000 Iraqi citizens weren't brutally killed in their homelands, as subsidized by my own tax dollars -9/11 - never forget; and nothing else in history ever happened.

Ahh, the satisfaction of comprehension. I'm glad all that fog has finally been chased from our virgin minds; now we can get onto correcting the errors we, as a country, have made. Let's prioritize countering the activities that endeavor to kill people on an industrial level. We are still left with many choices! Protecting the environment is a good one, or the removal of trade sanctions and embargoes directly responsible for wide-spread famine and epidemic levels of diseases and illnesses which are easily vaccinated in the industrial countries. Or how about standing against this grotesquely inhuman "Global War on Terrorism"; we can argue against its persistence on the pretence of its absurdity, realizing that any comprehensive, worldwide campaign against the manifestation of terrorism in the global context would begin by bombing the Whitehouse and the Pentagon to dust. I don't mean to sound snide or sarcastic; such action would adhere precisely to the Bush doctrine on combating terrorism. All of you who fancy to brand me a Godless liberal and call it a day would be well-advised to consult a history book while bearing in mind the immortal words our beloved commander-in-chief had stated on the eve of the war on terror: "no distinction between those who commit acts of terror and those who support them, because they're equally as guilty of murder" (or something to that effect). Reconcile that bold declaration of policy with realities of U.S. policy resulting from the Dili Massacre in East Timor; reference the 12 November '92 Boston Globe for an article about the civil court case Todd vs. Panjaitan. Connect these two for an interesting perspective of United States terrorist-harboring behavior. Of course, to do so, we need to agree on a few ground rules. 1) Murdering defenseless civilians who are peacefully gathered constitutes terrorism. 2) "Defenseless Civilians" are entitled to life irregardless of their ethnicity or nationality. 3) Legal statues of limitations will be upheld (there is none on murder; the Dili Massacre occurred in 1991). 4) The United States must hold itself to the same standards of moral conduct that it impresses upon the rest of the world; failure to do so incurs defiling the nobility of any of our diplomatic endeavors, a practice essentially shifting what we call 'acts of terrorism' to something more closely resembling 'resistance of foreign imperialism'.

Browse these sources if you wish; accept your role as passive perpetuator if you don't. Comment if you feel there is a third course I've overseen; I would be delighted to hear it. Don’t allow yourself to become discouraged, in any case. Whichever of these three categories you identify with (of the two I've described or the third, unknown), we can all contribute to the causes of justice and peace. While I don't feel that repeating hackneyed bumper-sticker wisdom accomplishes anything, I feel that a sharpening the senses, thinking critically and with motivation for conscious, calculated action, can.

Eyes Boholding Truth, Facing Those Dead to the State

2006-08-02T08:17:00.000-07:00

I am admittedly, at least for the moment, not up to speed on the latest rhetoric circulating around Washington D.C. concerning Medicare and Medicaid. I will assume that little has changed and the issue is barely considered an issue amid allegedly more pressing affairs: the legitimacy of current wars, the urgency of upcoming wars, the denial of yesterday's wars, and whatever fear-motivated political causes our "leaders" consider more worthy of their time and our tax dollars. Domestic issues, such as the health and well-being of our nation's citizenry, don’t seem to garner political support or press attention as maybe they should. Whether this results from politicians' "gold-fleece" health care benefits -an odd initiative that distances our decision-making "men created equally" from participating in a defunct public health care system that they, themselves, mismanage, or from an outright disregard for the non-wealthy, those who are unable to sway the perspectives and affect the hands of politicians, and therefore may as well die, I am not entirely sure. I believe the specifics of the cause is of little significance when we consider the magnitude of its consequence. My assumptions borrow from patterns of previous policy, in a nutshell the systematic fund-slashing which grinds social programs to a halt both at home and abroad. The efforts of government-subsidized humanitarians working to aid the impoverished at fulfilling their universal right to live are crippled by government-sanctioned fiscal starvation. I am confident my assumptions are accurate.

I can account for my unawareness, my being forced to assume: I was a bit cut off from the political world while volunteering at the RAM (Remote Area Medical) event that took place this past weekend at the Wise County Fairgrounds in western Virginia. RAM is an annual, all-volunteer event that provides medical, optical, and dental services to the uninsured/unable to pay, free of charge. Sixty-six hundred patients received services in one weekend that they'd otherwise be forced to live without. Involvement in the event I consider a privilege because I have never, in my life, seen anything like it. A gathering of thousands of strangers in the mountains of rural VA, coming together to provide or receive the goodwill that sustains life, in the physiological and spiritual sense; there are few things in the world like RAM.

Outlining the positive side to RAM is a pleasure, but I cannot distract my thought process from the negative side, the omniscient, ugly reality that has necessitated RAM.

RAM captures, in essence, the largest single piece of America's social programs inadequacies that someone can view all at once. Thousands of people drive from distances sometimes hours away to wait several hours through the night, uninhibited by rain or cold, to receive medical care that they cannot afford and that is performed entirely by volunteers with equipment and supplies that are donated. Why is this necessary in such a wealthy society? Why are provisions of these services so sparsely available to the economically disadvantaged that they have to negotiate such obstacles to acquire them? Why is it necessary for such a tremendous outpouring of selfless goodwill by nearly a thousand volunteers in order for the poor to get basic medical services that the state and the privileged citizens of that state take for granted? These questions have no answers because they're seldom asked; they probably cannot be explained logically and rationally without conceding that this country has become a veritable cesspool of socioeconomic injustice and class over-stratification. These words sound harsh, but there is clearly no other way to rationalize RAM. It exists because a small but growing unrepresented faction of the U.S. populace is literally left to their own meager resources for survival, and they are unable to achieve survival without the altruism of those volunteers acting in defiance to the social/economical schematic of American Society.

This assessment, though appropriate, is too depersonalized to effectively convey the myriad of unforgettable images I confronted and that, indeed, ought to confront the national conscience. I was faced with people, a very great many people, people of a widely diverse spectrum of backgrounds, all with one thing in common: they are the people you never see discussed on the floor of political debate, receiving the needed attention of government. These people were, from epidemic levels of marginalization and apathy, dead to the state.

At a personal level, I can share one of those images that may help give my assaults some grounding context. The most disheartening thing that I saw was a young adolescent girl, perhaps 15 or 16 years of age, in tears, in pain, and unable to speak because she had recently had teeth pulled. I couldn't tell how many; her mouth was full of blood-soaked gauze. I think some must have been front teeth, judging from how the gauze was arranged in her mouth, but I can't be sure. The expression on her face spoke of a girl whose life was changed, permanently and regrettably, for the worse. I was awestruck and unable to think of anything else for a while after. At such a young age, she has lost her natural adult teeth, her appearance altered and her hopes of growing into adulthood with a naturally beautiful smile were compromised. The question I could not stop asking myself was why had this happened? Why was this not prevented? I couldn't understand; I still cannot understand. I believe she doesn't either, or anybody else for that matter, but she is the only one who paid for this indiscernible injustice; I have all of my teeth even though my grasp of this is no better than hers. Are her teeth merely an expense of free-market capitalism? Perhaps they're an abstract and unusual casualty of the Global War on Terrorism? Maybe the protection of her dental hygiene is in conflict with the right of grotesquely overgrown international corporations to expand uninhibited by the needs of individuals to whom they're not responsible? (Devil’s advocate for a sec) Her parents should just be more economically successful, I suppose. The provision of her proper growth and development as a child by social programs would only stagnate her parents' efforts to pull themselves up by their bootstraps and contribute to the consumption-driven economy. We, the affluent members of society, would have to work harder; better to let her teeth rot. (Devil’s advocate, stop!) These perspectives, though never overtly stated, express what must be the nation's collective thought-process. Of course they're unstated, they self-discredit immediately when spoken aloud. The idea that our economic system is anything even resembling a free-market is illusory and quickly unravels when critically examined; the GWOT cannot logically be tied to domestic social issues by any freethinker that has averted the Bush-indoctrination suggesting any injustice is tolerable provided it brandishes the label "combating terrorism". Lastly, it is important to reconsider the rights we presume entitled to corporations. Corporate right does not supersede individual right; the idea that corporations even have rights at all is a fallacy. Corporations are not people, so when we justify the suffering of people as an inevitable but acceptable consequence of protecting the rights of corporations to grow and prosper, we are speaking an entirely different political language, one alien and not interpretable to the idealisms of American Democracy.

Grassroots activism is, as in nearly every other case, desperately in order. Acting in the interest of others in this case is actually, in the long-run, acting in one's self-interest . You may consider yourself non-poor if you have that luxury, but consider this: poverty may never be more than arms-reach away. What I have learned so far from the speaking forums at the National Coalition for the Homeless is that homelessness affects only one group of people along with their children: those who never expected it. If you think you're safeguarded from the unfathomable trials of poverty, you'd be well advised to think again. And if you’re curious to know whether or not someone with privilege will advocate for your cause should you discover poverty first hand, the answer is easy: ask yourself, will I advocate for the cause of someone in poverty? If you don't follow reading this blog post with conscious activism, I guess you have your answer. Good luck avoiding the far-reaching claws of disenfranchisement/disempowerment; they've been known to affect some high-flying, unsuspecting individuals. If you do, however, become active in reversing the struggles of so many unsuspecting and undeserving victims, then you will come to know the adventurous joys that I have experienced and referenced previously as a privilege, "few things in the world like it".

Answering the Call to Defiance: on Hierarchies Shattered and Erased

2006-07-25T18:45:00.000-07:00

(started on July 4th, 2006. A non-fictional account of one of my more memorable moments as a U.S. Marine)

Recently, my memory revisited the occasion in which John and I stood before nearly thirty snickos (staff NCOs, a "Staff NCO" is an enlisted marine with a rank of Staff Sergeant or higher) in May 2004, while we were stationed near Fallujah, Iraq. From one perspective, it is a tale of two degenerates answering for their misconduct by being shamed for their actions in front of their superiors. From another, it is an account of two corporals vs. every senior enlisted man in their entire company -and may the best men win. The lot of us grappled, the fight was dirty however unphysical; a cut-throat game of psychological chess ensued that night. I believe both sides departed bruised and battered, uncertain of the victor. John did not seem at all appreciative of my free-spirited belligerence and its ability to get him roped into a bind, but I am certain, as certain as I am of the origin of rain to be from the clouds above, that the two of us had been forged into life-long friendship that night. We share a friendship that's proven unbreakable by the forces of baseless pride and ignorant presumptions of self-importance as embodied by the pitiful leaders we encountered together.

The ordeal began with a crude piece of unedited writing the two of us co-wrote and submitted to our squad leader. You know the type of thing school kids are forced to do when they misbehave, how they have to write this-many thousand words about such and such or something else and, bottom line: nobody reads it -right? Well, in this case, the piece was read indeed, and it was not very well liked. The assignment was 5,000 words on Marine Corps leadership, but we only penned out around 2,000 or so. 2,000 proved enough to turn a few heads and land ours on the chopping block. The following afternoon we both found ourselves in front of the company level Commanding Officer, one at a time, trying to placate the Captain and preserve our hides. This was around the time I was informed that I didn’t have the right to the air I breathed but that I wasn't worth the expense of the bullet it would take to kill me. I found myself in sharp disagreement with both of these assertions and tactfully informed the Captain of this. We argued for a while, neither of us willing to compromise. After a semi-intense face off with the man (backed by three of his cronies because he presumably didn’t have the pebbles to face me one on one), I was dismissed and told this matter was still not resolved and would remain so until I was back in the U.S., a civilian, dishonorably discharged from the military. I assessed the threat as empty and the emotions that spurred it as pathetic, but I kept these assessments to myself for I felt their source, the captain, was a man beyond redemption. He was right though, the matter was indeed not resolved; John and I were summoned once again, later that evening, this time to report to the berthing hut of the company 1st Sgt. Upon entering the hooch, we were welcomed not just by the 1st Sgt., but also by 27 other senior enlisted men of our company, ranging in rank from Staff Sgt. to Master Sgt. I'd estimate their cumulative time of military service to be something in the neighborhood of 500 to 600 years -stacked against the 7 shared by John and I. Immediately after coming inside, the door was secured behind us and we were handed our legendary manuscript. The 1st Sgt. ordered us to read our words aloud and to heed any interruption by the marines present in order to answer any questions to their satisfaction. We proceeded with his orders; John read slowly and clearly what we had written and I surveyed the 56 eager and bloodthirsty eyes that never left John and I. I suppressed my grins, forced myself to appear calm though I was extremely anxious, and didn't suppress any tears or fear because neither of these surfaced to threaten my composure; I must admit though, having all of these thoroughly indoctrinated and vigilant marines before me, seeming to be just a few pokes away from assault mode, was kind of euphoric. I masked my pleasure in an effort to appear professional, even though it was truly a boy-hood dream fulfilled: having dozens of men that I vilely despised listening to my friend and I formally charge a stream of deep-cutting grievances against them and the institution they held sacrosanct but that we held in contempt. The interruptions the 1st Sgt. had forewarned arrived frequently, sometimes several one right after another with no reversions back to the reading to offer us respite. I handled the majority of the questions, speaking softly but sincerely -a strategy I'd developed on-site to command silence while endowing my words heavily with meaning and integrity. I looked deeply into the eyes of whomever dared pose a question, pausing extensively for each breath, allowing each batch of my words to sink in before beginning the volley that followed them. Many of the snickos appeared never in their lives to have thought independently before, but they took to it like an infant learning to crawl: struggling hopelessly at first with the new discovery, much to the amusement of the seasoned veterans (John and I) who observed, but unembarrassed and playfully enjoying every moment of the learning process; it was kind of adorable. Many were stalwarts, tough to break, that could not bear to request clarification of something expressed by a subordinate; I gave each of these men a concentrated glare every time John's reading arrived upon a vocabulary word I knew they'd never before heard, and each time they'd look away, knowing that I knew they didn't know, their pride sustaining one blow after another. Others became intrigued by our writing (after all, it was common sense-based) and gradually became comfortable asking what we meant by certain things, what we thought about certain other things they'd thought of but that we'd omitted, and offering their own perspective, which nearly always opposed ours, but expressed in a civil, lateral tone. These communications were, however, isolated cases of very carefully guarded outreach and deviations from their prideful group decorum were only ever mild at best. Throughout the impromptu course of instruction, the underlying tone was one of cold hatred and disposition. From their angle, John and I had approached their altar before rendering appropriate customs and then we defecated on it, wiping out buttocks on the shawl; this was displeasing to them. Our conversational contributions flew back and forth, packaged in professional language, but making minimal efforts to conceal the mutual disaffection for each other inside.

Our lives were threatened, I remember that. The 1st Sgt. once said something about a lack of witnesses… if something should happen in that room… us not walking out. He said "or maybe there aren't any witnesses", I recall verbatim, and his eyes as he spoke were unforgettable. After he said so, I remember eyeing the 28 pistols in the room and the 28 marines holstering them. I remember calmly realizing that in an outright shooting match, John and I would most surely lose and be killed, but thinking I was quick enough to maybe gun down a few of them first. Concentrating deeply, I looked throughout the room and carefully selected the targets I would dispose of in order of their priority; I would never have such a chance. The conflict that broiled between our two sides, the two of us against the twenty eight of them, never transcended the medium of spoken language. Did I, at least at first, find this a bit disappointing? Did I consider the loss of my life a price worth paying if it meant bringing a few of those wretched, soulless, despicable men down to a lifeless slumber beside me? It's possible. Was I beginning to embrace an ideology that I hadn't yet come to intimately know but was getting my first tastes of understanding that night, the ideology of peaceful resolution? It's possible as well, I suppose. Respecting universal humanity and acknowledging the value of human life are lessons and styles of living that repetitiously cycle through various stages during the course of one's life: learning, forgetting, unlearning, remembering, and relearning. Perhaps there are more; it is a difficult discipline to master. But I do know, with absolute certainty, that all thirty of us did sleep peacefully that night, whole and free of gunshot wounds, the same way we had awakened that morning (if only all veterans could be so lucky). The exchange lasted between two and three hours, an exchange restricted to words and the thoughts/emotions that had bred them. Our M-16s draped inanimately at our sides, vessels of intolerance and injustice left lifeless and silent, for these were not the tools with which we crafted our combat. We stood unarmed but for our words, warriors of the pen, not of the gun.

I remember capitalizing decisively on a faux pas opportunity the 1st Sgt. let slip once when he chastised my for citing poetry (something considered by the insecure to be feminine/homosexual and therefore placeless in the military), he said "have any other poems you'd like to share with us?" I responded that I did and drew a notebook from my cammie pocket wherein I had jotted down a poem I came across while reading Phillip Caputo's book, A Rumor of War. For the benefit of my readers, I will retype it here in the blog, from memory:

And the end of the fight
Is a tombstone, white
With the name of the late deceased.

And the epitaph drear:
"A fool lies here
Who tried to hustle the East."

I described for them what I believe to be an obvious parallel between the war Caputo wrote about, the War in Vietnam, and the war we were fighting at the present day, the War in Iraq. They dismissed the idea as preposterous, pointing out that Caputo's credibility was questionable because he had been a commissioned officer, not having the heart to hack it in the enlistment corps. I didn't respond; I didn't know of a convincing way to do so in addressing rear-echelon mechanics that were safeguarded from action their entire careers but had nevertheless spoken so condescendingly and self-importantly of a platoon commander who continually saw combat in the early stages of the Vietnam War. "Just an officer…" -I remember thinking these men were depressingly destitute for passing up an opportunity to grow wise if only they could, for even just a few seconds, shelve their pride then consciously reflect. Pride is an inhibitor of understanding; perhaps this is why so many who perceive themselves as elitists in some regard are so often ignorant.

The ambitions of the Captain remain unrealized even to this day. Both John and I were honorably discharged from military service and never looked back. John got out first, but the two of us met up a couple months later at Myrtle Beach, S.C. I was happy to see his hair growing back, a symbolic indication of gradually returning to civilian life. He asked me about the goings-on of our unit back at Camp Lejeune and laughed hysterically at my cynical but truthful responses. He seemed to have developed an appreciation for by my free-spirited belligerence since that night in Iraq. We never again saw the 2,000 or so words that caused so much disruption; they were hand-written and never copied, lost forever along with any respect we might have had for their original premise: Marine Corps leadership. The reality that so few people will concede is that Marine Corps leadership is like any-other: a few good apples and a few bad apples with the majority lying somewhere in between, Nothing Special. To complete the hackneyed Marine Corps slogan, "a few good men", I will add the second facet that so few people even know exists: "A Few Good Men, A Whole Lot of Douche Bags". Judging from my experiences that night in Iraq, I'd estimate the standing ratio of douche bags to good men in our unit was approximately 14:1, the pistol-bearers comprising the former; myself and John, the latter.

So what changed? Simply stated: very little. The war continued, as it does even today, and all of the relating injustices that branch forth continued, multiplied even, as well. Why then the bold and loaded title? Because the changes, though very little, comprise the potential result of answering the call to defiance. Hierarchies in which John and I once were repressively enmeshed we had effectively shattered and then erased. No longer did these men view us as two little "semper fi" corporals that happily adhered to an arbitrary command structure without critically examining its merits. We, the defense department's goons, fought an unjust war, but John and I deprived that war of one properly functioning company, inverting it into one devoid of the textbook 'good order and discipline' that military fanatics obsess over only by responding to that call, seeing and expressing that the entire campaign lacked that 'good order and discipline' itself. This is the power of standing against power, the reward for self-liberation from a pattern of thoughtless submission to illegitimate authority, the hope for a world deadlocked in the crosshairs of a self-defeating culture of consumerism and genocide. Answer the call, that is my advice for all who read my words; the changes may by difficult to discern at the macro level, but your personal gains will be of a measure astronomical. Though uncertain of the victor, we were, conceivably for the first time, certain of ourselves.

The Dawn of Tradition and Holiday: Examining Reasoning Behind Celebration

2006-07-04T07:27:00.000-07:00

As I suppose possibly every conscious man, woman, and child in this hemisphere is already aware, today is the 4th day of the 7th month, the day that the United States celebrates the anniversary of declaring its independence. For those that are unaware, the abnormal behavior of millions of U.S. citizens shall provide sufficient alert that July 4th is a special day for the U.S.A. How we have found ourselves to remain 'independent' or 'free', still, after 230 years, is beyond my abilities to explain or even vaguely understand. It is far beyond those abilities of any other American as well, ignore their mindless banter to the contrary and confide in me, for they were not present at the D of I's signing either.

What I mean with what write, surely not to appear the sour grape, but to ask of every American citizen, rather beseech of all able-minded souls that still possess the breath of life and the strength to stand, to reflect upon, if even for only one moment, the progression through the pages of history, the state of affairs at present, and the prospect of days still to come, and to attempt to fathom this nation and its continued prestige as a world power.

This nation's presence in the world as its supreme, uncontested power; this nation's identity as the consumer of the worlds resources, in actuality, the consumer of the world itself; this nation's behavior in the global community as morally groundless, purely egotistic, and boundless in its capacity to repress, intervene, augment terrorist operatives against, and crush with all its strength, other nations' efforts at establishing democracy anywhere in the world; this nation's people's collective identity as flatly ignorant though selectively attentive, and basely apathetic to the most pressing of world affairs; this nation's cultural traditions rooted in transparent myth, thin veils behind which the truth, perverse obsessive genocide and other despicable things, lurks unspeakably.

These are the realities we, whether cognizant of or not, celebrate when we declare our allegiance to the stars and stripes. The supposition that we enjoy the greatest amount of individual freedom known to any citizenry of the world is a less-than-skin-deep fallacy. Our country’s freedom, though extremely great, is enjoyed by only a select few, wielded by those few in a manner to further those freedoms at any expense. We are a state controlled by an elitist class -a tight, impermeable circle that functions nothing like a democratic society, something closer to a totalitarian theocracy.

My assertions above capture only a brief snapshot of the world as I see it, see it through all the distortion and deceit, that is; but I am nonetheless very optimistic about the future of this land. I will now share what I believe awaits this human race, its inevitably destination, that end of ends wherein our arrival is continuous, perhaps even at this very moment, but still to greet us in every passage of time that shall follow hereafter until eternity suffers its demise. That any system or institution that presumes to govern the lives of men must suffer the very same trialsome pattern of refinement through progressive deaths that each man, himself, suffers.

The psychologist Catherine Snow explains the process of the developing brain, "Brain maturation is not about the way the brain grows, it's about the way it dies. As it ages, its neurons disappear." The process of which she speaks, 'synaptic pruning', which posits that an individual's mind will never have such a high level of neuro-connectivity as it does on the day of his/her birth. Each day that follows is a day that the connections between neurons are severed, the synapses connecting these brain cells are cut, plasticity diminishes and specialization within different domains of intelligence are defined. As a marble statue is crafted through the chiseling away of unwanted marble from the exquisite work of art that awaits its emancipation from within, the human mind is born a block of connected cells that are gradually trimmed to eventually unveil before the world that person's individual identity.

And the development of government follows this model as well, I believe, for government must certainly be, among other things, a product of human psychology. And looking back through the pages of history, it would be difficult to argue otherwise. Systems of social order began with structures characterized by absolute power. Social reform as imposed by the people began to gradually alter the identity of their ruling entity through progressive evolution typically resembling the "trial and error" paradigm seen in nature. When this particular form of government has run its course, it will be scrapped and replaced; what replaces it must, by reasonable logic, be better. For evolution is neither liberal nor conservative, it serves not the agenda of the Democrats or the Republicans. It concerns itself merely with the survival of it species: in this case, the need and right of the individual, as child of nature, to operate within a civil social order. Happy Independence Day, all my fellow citizens of the human race; I believe that independence indeed awaits, unwritten into the script of history for it is we who must pen it into one of the forthcoming acts.

The Soldier and The Civilian -A Tale of Co-masochism and Self-Proclaimed Innocence

2006-06-18T19:32:00.000-07:00

I had an ear-opening discussion recently with a pacifist mother-of-two who was surprised to discover I was formerly in the armed forces. She inquired about the 'extent' of my 'involvement' in the war, rather the 'nature' of my 'commitment' to the campaign while I was deployed; in short, had I killed anyone and how did I feel about my previous job that potentially demanded my doing so?

Before I responded, I thought for a moment about the presumption of the warrior as the one who kills. It seems obvious, from the muzzle of the smoking gun that has ended human life, trace backwards from one mechanical part to the next until you reach the trigger; the finger that is closest is connected to the man/woman whom you may rightfully label a murderer, right?

I wonder, though, if that is the whole story. Two strangers, one has killed the other, but not before traveling from one continent to another, enduring harsh and unforgiving living/working conditions, and indeed risking his/her own life to do so. I believe there may be some missing pieces to this puzzle that we must add before we can rightfully call it complete. Who else, for surely there must be others, is involved in this murder? You will find all accomplices in much the same manner that you discovered the triggerman: from the origins (politicians/government officials) of a conflict that has ended numerous human lives, trace downward through the social structure until you reach the very bottom (the citizens of a 'participatory' government, the enablers of the most influential world power to act); the closest able-to-vote, law-abiding, tax-paying, suburban middle-class mother is the passive, behind-the-scenes culprit of the 1st-person killer.

Consider the two of these people; their similarities are fascinating. The soldier is obeying orders because he must do so in order to provide for his family. The civilian is paying taxes and spending residual income, activities that drive the economy, because she must do so in order to provide for her family. The soldier does not have time to be critical of his orders and besides, doing so might jeopardize the stability he has established within the military. The civilian does not have time to be politically aware and active and besides, doing research about things like corporate interests in truth-distortion and the nature of the economic vote could uncover uncomfortable realities that might jeopardize the stability she has established within the American culture of consumerism. They’re like twins separated at birth! -their differing circumstances make them appear different, but they are cut from the same stone.

So who is to blame for the man they killed, government? That's impossible; government does not physically exist. It has no ulterior motives or evil character-tainting sentiments. Is it the elected officers of government? That's possible but unlikely; their blame, so far as I can tell, must be equal to that of the soldier's and the civilian's. Many of the defensive alibis you will hear from government officials are identical to those of the other two: providing for their families, inadequate time to sharply consider the wholeness of things, desire to avert jeopardizing their stability, and these alibis are, I believe, not illegitimate if the others' alibis are acceptable. Is it human nature? -Moral impurity? -Some inherent, destructive antisocial pathology that is ingrained or acquired during infancy? I felt these were unlikely explanations as well, for the world must have been at peace before its people were at war, but I ran out of time; I had to respond to her questions lest I be considered rude. For the time, I figured our hands must all share some of the strangers' blood; remove us all from the scenario and the man would still be alive.

I responded to her questions with a condensed version of what you've read above, maintaining eye contact with her, the person I thought I hadn't a thing in common with, and thinking about the families we killed together. I remember the sun was brutally hot that afternoon but we had discovered refuge in the shade of a towering tree. I watched her two beautiful daughters running around barefoot in the tall grass, safe from all harms I could imagine -safe because no nation in the world behaves like ours, behaves like us.

Violence as Language: An Interpretation of Exchanges Between Americans and Arabs

2006-06-13T11:06:00.000-07:00

Headlines appearing in this morning’s newspapers accounted recent events whose details are all too familiar: Death in the Middle East. To suggest that Zarqawi’s death would not diminish the vigor and audacity of the insurgency’s engagement of coalition forces, al Qaeda felt it necessary to substantiate thought with action. Label this action not as merely an isolated atrocity, but as al Qaeda’s line in the 3+ year old turn-based communication between two panels of intercultural discussion. Just us our killing Zarqawi was our previous line to al Qaeda, our responsive action to their recent bombing (still yet to come, but predictably another volley of bombs and bullets that will cost an indeterminable number of civilians’ lives) will be our next line in these ongoing “talks”. I feel my interpretation of these events as communication is apt and reasonable because it captures, if not in an abstract sense, the entirety of interactions between the parties involved.

Although the persistence of these atrocities is undeniable, defined “necessary for the cause of freedom” from the perspective of the war’s supporters (whatever that means), any concerned citizen with a desire for resolution ought to wonder if the combat-based dialogue ever indeed “progresses”. The violence in Iraq seems to occur and recur in cycles -and due to the absence of any diplomatic efforts at attaining peace, it is the only hope of achieving resolve- but if you consider that each cycle is identical in its form, function, and objective as the cycle that preceded it, there truly is no reason to believe the dialogue/violence will ever cease. Why would it? Why will two groups of individuals, two groups who never speak but continually kill one another, suddenly stop? There must be some measure of variation between the isolated conversational evolutions (roadside bombs answered by laser guided bombs; assaulting convoys answered by assaulting civilians) otherwise there is no reason to believe they will ever reach a mutual end; the pattern is not linear -approaching a conclusion, it is circular -approaching itself.

The media focus a great deal of attention to the death of Zarqawi and ask what impact his death will have on the state of affairs in Iraq (they no longer have the stomach to reuse the worn out line “it brings us a step closer to conclusion”) and the answer, as clearly offered by al Qaeda, is probably the same as if you’d posed the question dropping Zarqawi’s name and replacing it with Salvador Guerrero (last American killed in O.I.F.): none. The loss of a single man does not affect the legitimacy nor the nobility, and therefore, not the perpetuation of related activity, of the cause for which he died -not Zarqawi’s death, not Guerrero’s either. The only means by which the ongoing pattern of bloody exchanges between the U.S. and Arab combatants can ever hope reach an end is if they are approaching one through dialogue, whether that dialogue is peaceful (as prescribed by international law) or violent (as demanded necessary but never rationalized by the current administration).

Illuminant Defiance vs. Blind Obedience: One Brave Man Stands Against Cowardly Masses

2006-06-08T19:31:00.000-07:00

A truth as discomforting as it is thought-provoking: the U.S. Army stands to court martial 1st Lt. Ehren Watada for refusing deployment orders to Iraq. Whether or not this escalates into a much-needed critical examination of the conflict Operation Iraqi Freedom (O.I.F.) and its merits will be revealed only as events unfold, but the ugly underbelly of O.I.F. has been undeniably exposed simply by the assertion of Lt. Watada. That the U.S. Army must put on trial an experienced and accomplished soldier, potentially its bravest officer from his recent bold actions, solely for keeping his promise to the American people indicates dysfunction of the entire hierarchy. And dysfunction of an entire social structure is attributable to the corruption of its highest levels. We are not prosecuting a criminal for his deviant behavior; we are prosecuting a soldier whose actions strictly comply with the structure's original design. –This self-evident perspective is easy to see but the subsequent action it necessitates is difficult; I only fear America’s majority will take a perspective whose discernment is equally easy however fundamentally irrational: that Watada is unpatriotic and cowardly, simply because the subsequent action prescribed by that perspective is effortless.

The conservative critics have exhaustively labeled Ehren Watada a "coward". Let's examine the reasoning behind such a label: 1) Cowards run, Watada's feet are firmly planted; he isn't going anywhere 2) Cowards hide, Watada is in plain sight; he's in center spotlight of the public eye. If "coward" is not an appropriate label, then what is? I think "patriot" (in the natural, denotative sense) most accurately captures his identity. His self-appointed obligation to defend the U.S. constitution bequests of him to disobey orders from his superiors that are unlawful, and he is doing exactly that. As history his proven, a life sworn to defend the constitution often incurs hazard, inviting the attacks of those who exist to dissolve and disparage the constitution. Today the tradition is maintained as the brave stance Watada has taken in defense of our constitution is putting him in danger. What is unusual about Watada's case, though, is where the attacks are coming from: the very same institution Watada has joined in order to defend the constitution.

"All enemies, foreign and domestic" –that’s right from the oath that all U.S. serviceman take, the oath that Watada has yet to betray, and although I have never met the man, I don’t suspect he has any intention of betraying. Those enemies that are distanced from our constitution by Watada's bravery are those individuals that continuously betray their own oaths, lie to their own people, send the armies they have been entrusted with to fight unjust wars out of corporate interest rather than necessity or the people’s will.

What many veterans of limited critical-thinking skills demand of Lt. Watada is unquestioned obedience to orders. What these veterans cannot see or understand is that unquestioned obedience to orders is so heinously anti-social that it's preeminence in cultures surface time and again throughout world history in the medium of holocaust, genocide, slavery, and other forms of abject injustice. Those veterans who call him un-American should consult a 4th grade level history book where they would quickly discover America was founded by a serious of defiant acts coupled with a climate of cultural disobedience.

Hail Lt. Watada as a modern American hero, commend him for epitomizing citizenship by keeping the time-honored tradition of protecting our country's values from the will of tyrants who wish for people to be unfree. Prosecute those who forced upon him only one morally upright course of action, the one directly preceding martyrdom: civil disobedience. In doing so, we shall take 2 steps closer to restoring American Democracy and eradicating fascism.

Memorial Day: Remembering the Actions of One Man

2006-05-29T19:31:00.000-07:00

On this Memorial Day, I would like to share with all my fellow countrymen a story that follows perfectly the classic “bad apple spoiling the bunch” concept. The extent to which this American People chooses to exercise its sense of proper judgment and justice will ultimately determine the level of devastation this “bad apple” can potentially “spoil the bunch”.

Before I begin, I will offer my sympathy to the family and friends of Jesse Macbeth; to articulate my true feelings on this matter is something beyond what I am reasonably capable of, for reasons of my own limitations and personal prejudice. I must concede that repercussions will befall you that exceed what his infractions justify, perhaps tenfold. The words of mine that follow are not meant in any way to prosecute or persecute the named. They are dispassionate analyses of what I have observed and I have distanced my emotions from this issue as far as I am able.

That being said, it must be understood that Jesse Macbeth is an envious liar whose words and actions have proven immensely destructive.* From his deep pains of personal shame and inner disgust, he strives to undo the accomplishments of veterans because he never truly became one himself. Jesse Macbeth fraudulently joined the social action initiative, Iraqi Veterans Against the War, in January and the organization extended to him support and encouragement as he was in dire need of both. It has since been discovered that Jesse appeared in films wherein he confessed to involvement in several war crimes while deployed in the Middle East. An investigation into his past revealed the extent of his military service falls shy of completing basic training and that he never even served overseas -the right wing blogs went wild: the IVAW/Jesse Macbeth scandal is depicted purely as testimony to the futility and illegitimacy of the entire antiwar movement. IVAW had, by their account, swallowed a suicide pill the day they showed compassion for Jesse Macbeth.

I will spare all the unkind words that simmer in my heart for those who sharply criticize the efforts of IVAW’s actual veterans, especially those critics whoso ardently support the war itself, sounding more like war-savvy strategists and combat-hardened veterans themselves than like people who refuse to pick up a rifle and fight the war to their liking and instead offer their commentary from the safety of the deep rear protected by those they slander. My scrutiny of these individuals serves no greater purpose for I feel that anyone who has predetermined a course of base ignorance and narrow thinking must discover sense for themselves to grasp its true value. It is my sincere hope that they will discover the err in their assessments; failure to do so can easily become a threat to themselves and others.

I now request of all Americans the rightful judgment of the following: Consider Jesse Macbeth, a young man who suffers every day, self-confined within a world of psychopathological isolation. Consider that he has adopted the identity of veterans, men and women he deeply admires, simply because his own identity is diffuse and brings him no satisfaction. He has defiled their actions through his lies not because he intended to but because he is truly and sadly ill. Now consider the 250 veterans of IVAW who stand up and speak their beliefs and passions against what they believe to be an unjust war, doing so not for their own profit or prestige but for the protection of those who follow them in the uniformed services. Consider the humility it must take to face your past; accept that what you have fought so hard for, risked your life for even, is something that you are ensnared in ideological conflict with; and then stand against it not because it is easy or fun or cool, but because it is right. Consider these two, Jesse Macbeth and IVAW, and decide for yourself if their overlap is to such a great extent that melding them together for trial and subsequent disposition is justice.

In summation, though unforeseen but sharp hits against a group of passionately devoted individuals whom I deeply respect (and am indeed a member of myself) have been sustained, my feelings of solemn respect and mourning this Memorial Day are not derailed. In truth, I feel these blows have illuminated just how far the widely varied casualties of this Iraqi war spread from its epicenter. In memorial of all those who have sacrificed for this country, those falling with honor on foreign battle fields, those who have returned home, broken in body, mind, or spirit, and finally those who have sacrificed in more abstract, easily-forgotten ways, never having made it to the front (i.e.: victims of manipulation, government-sanctioned abuse and beratement, and an apparent cultural indifference to psychological disabilities), I take a knee and pay respect.

*It has been suggested that Jesse Macbeth infiltrated the ranks of IVAW specifically to smear them in this fashion while under the direction of influential, high-ball republicans. I have included this merely as a footnote because I do not regard this as particularly relevant and I will share why: first of all, Jesse’s parasitic presence in the anti-war movement is an inaccurate representation of the whole anti-war movement; any half-wit with basic reasoning skills does not need me to highlight that. Second of all, what negative impact could the discovery of such unethical behavior from the republicans possibly have on my opinion of them? Could I possibly think less of them than I do at present? I scarcely believe it possible. A group of men who thoughtlessly exchange the lives of young soldiers to further the economic interests of their wealthy campaign supporters stand to lose nothing of what I think of them should I discover they are being manipulative of activist organizations.

Attaining Impeachment May Turn Out to be a Mixed Blessing

2006-05-24T14:29:00.000-07:00

It’s difficult to escape the latest trend of Bush-bashing; seeming to surface in magazines, junk mail, bumper stickers, and things of the like, it reached a new level altogether when the Center for Constitutional Rights drafted their “Articles of Impeachment Against George W. Bush” this past March. There is this sweeping movement to remove George from his office, and its arguments are very compelling. I have read most of the articles (Melville House, the publisher, will pay the postage of you buy a copy and mail it to your congressperson) and rather enjoyed seeing my day-to-day grievances against the executive articulated beautifully by a non-profit org. comprised of distinguished lawyers dedicated to preserving our constitution. It is gratifying, for sure, to see the substance of a despicable man, undeserving of any public authority whatsoever, laid bare before the eyes of whosoever cares to examine, but I wonder if impeachment is truly the wisest avenue of action. This statement may appear a dichotomous, but allow me to elaborate-

Imagine today’s executive branch without the presence of our boy, George. Vice President Cheney, the man who would ascend into Bush’s seat if the latter is uprooted, is no desirable alternative. In fact, I posit it is in our best interest to maintain the status quo lest an effort to improve achieves the precise opposite. Cheney is, as observed by a conscious and ponderous few, **conceivably** the human form of so many deplorable, grotesquely evil, morally sordid elements -ordinarily characterized independently as character attributes or abstract traits one individual may possess- that have, in the case of one Dick Cheney, sprouted arms and legs from a human-sembling torso devoid of a heart. A seemingly cold profile analysis, it stems not from bitter emotion, but from compiling factual data and arriving at this unbiased, non-partisan conclusion: Cheney is a dignified human being only in that his appearance is similar, somewhat, to those others who are not guilty of the most heinous of international high crimes. But correlation is not causation and this… this Cheney is not human in every sense merely because he looks like other people.

Back on subject, why do I believe leaving Bush in office is preferable to disposing of him? I periodically see our president (as he is commonly called) address his people and I easily realize this man has the same capacity for proficiently governing a nation as an infant iguana of marginal intellectual abilities (as far as iguanas go) does once he is crushed under the radials of a tractor-trailer and left in the sun to rot for a few weeks: a very limited capacity, indeed. He’s up there (George, not the iguana) having the time of his life, completely oblivious to the struggles of the families he has wrecked, apathetic to the fragility of the lives his agents unlawfully incarcerate and routinely torture, and speaking incessantly about things existing only in his head and ideals that are effortlessly debunked by any critic with a glimmer of reasoning ability and whose g-factor intelligence measure is above that of the average six-year-old’s. This is not the sort of man we want in the White House, agreed, but now that he is there, we must consider what tenants are next in line before we evict him:

As coldly criminal and ethically reprehensible as Cheney might be, he is irrefutably smart. If his talents for lying and deceiving are surpassed by any man, the GOP hasn’t found him; Cheney is the best in the business. Currently, he is forced by fault of bureaucratic design to operate through Bush to accomplish the republican agenda. Watch Bush closely or review his days as an oil tycoon and you will see he has not recently or in his younger days made a single operation run any more smoothly, quickly, or effectively from his involvement. In fact, he is a prodigy of the ship-sinking arts. Look not on America as this ship, but rather Bush’s party, and you will see he is an ace that America, at this point, can scarcely afford to lose. Let him foil and frustrate Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Rove, and whatever other demons of democracy operate behind the scenes for the remainder of his second term and by that time, they will all be politically spent. Toss out Bush now and he’ll become the patsy they so desperately need; his party will focus all the blame on him and pretend as though they were all innocent little Eichmanns that were just ‘following orders’.

And don’t make the naïve assumption that Bush’s successors can be dispatched in the same manner and expediency as he may be. Realize that some of these men, while operating so far outside the bounds of the law and basic human decency, understood they were doing so and took exhaustive measures to ensure they could not be brought to justice. Cheney and Rumsfeld are two examples of men who likely had such realizations, therefore the prospect of bringing them to justice, while they occupy their respective offices, is grim. A crook is aware of his identity and prone to conceal it if he has his senses about him and desires to continue his arts for much longer.

Put simply, I believe this administration needs to be maintained a single entity; we can, upon the proper hour’s arrival, hold individual trials for each of the key players in keeping with (or restoration of, as the case may be) the traditions of American Democracy. But as long as they maintain power of the executive branch, we must respect that to divide them would have a similar catastrophic effect as slicing open a malignant tumor before it is extracted from the patient, the caustic effects are unpredictable but most certainly consequential. The men have this habit of upholding the “no honor among thieves” cliché to a level that is mortifying. Marginal at first, truth became valueless, humanitarian virtues trivialized until fully discarded, these men outright disprove supposed principles of moral universality (reference Chomsky). Bush, though certainly not a respectable exception to the patterns of antisocial behaviors of the presidential cabinet, may be an unwitting presence of damage control through his contribution of semi-debilitating ineptitude. Keep him in there, I say; he certainly isn’t making things any worse than they’d be without him. Let us vigilantly await, therefore, with much tar and feathers, the inauguration of the 2008 Democratic candidate as 44th president before we punish these men for their crimes.

A Poet's Passing, Her Words Still With Us

2006-05-15T16:17:00.000-07:00

It was 120 years ago today that poet Emily Dickinson died in her home in Massachusetts, known to the world barely moreso than she was the day she was born. Her life shrouded in mystery, recalled today as quiet serenity, it's hard for me not to wish there were more like her in our modern culture than there are. I've fancied myself Dickinson-like in times of trouble and distress (as though I could abandon the world and be content with only myself), though I cannot claim to be her; she is something legendary. I've written many things that I had hoped to complete by today so that I might publish them as a tribute to her, but I have completed nothing. I have no finished works but many fragments that stand apart from each other, stand alone and distanced from cohesion. With no other strategy than to finish this thing and post it (now 3 days behind schedule) I hereby mash them together and let them face the world as they are, the way their inspiration never needed to. I have entitled the project "My Nostalgia for My Emily".

My heart cries for the Emily my memory recalls
My ever-living mystery, my love, my Emily.
Your speech

Silent spirit Her words, like raindrop fragments, fell upon our yearning souls
Still today her voice is silently resounding
A dancing mind, combative soul, a creature
These confines that contain you, you have built within your mind
The

The outside world could not distract you from the
Motion filled with grace and quietness, her hands and arms like elegance

We share a name, you and I; we share a null-identity. The world with no apt labels for you and I allows us our social-translucence and cultural-anonymity.

---It's not all noteworthy, for sure, but my immemmories are contained somewhere therein.

A Return to Writing, A Renewed Love for the Written Word

2006-05-06T11:44:00.000-07:00

My blog, now silent for weeks, has lost its sense of direction, navigationally jarred and agitated to the point of possibly heading uphill in ardent struggle to arrive at the Earth's core. Its discombobulated state, however, has proven far from self-defeating, respecting that redefinition is periodically essential, that motion is not always progress, and that only one of all directions is forward. I consider my recent stagnation a privilege, and the fruit of which may conceivably prove progressive –to be consequence-determined by the quality of future writings. Blunt honesty, whether the reader is desirous of it or not, I shall now share: that my inclination to blog had been submarined by what I regard an overabundance, a gut wrenching plethora of literary garbage that pervades every square inch of popular media, specifically the internet, and has trickled down unconditionally unto individuals, bypassing their cognitive facilities, mindlessly accepted and repeated through their own mouths.

It is significant, I believe, to point out that this blog is free. Free in the two-pronged sense that you have paid nothing to read it as I haven't received a single dime to write it, we are both richer for it having been written as well as for it having been read. Free writing is pure, not contaminated with cash-related influences that are capable only of degrading its quality and diminishing its capacity for truth. The content of these words, though hitting on nothing in particular, are just the same untainted, and therefore full.

So few words that echo through this cavernous contemporary culture are pure. Pure in the sense that they originate exclusively from a selfless desire to communicate, from one person to another, an idea: an idea coming from that former person and nothing else, upon receipt of which that latter person has, as gift or poison, from the source something genuine, something without any contaminants whatsoever, something deserving of each of the words that served as its conduit. Words carry with them a rich history, whether the user is aware or ignorant; they may express love, but if not they are worthless, abused. The abuse of words is the perversion of self and society. The preference of silence over speech is sad, but for some may nonetheless be proper and prudent, and this, I believe, may be the saddest truth of all.

It seems these days that if the expression of language to its audience is not packaged through some readily-identifiable Hollywood medium, with some corporate slogan or public figure's logo stamped onto its side, or brandishing some other symbol depictive of a universally recognized "cool", it will come off esoteric to the extent of sounding foreign. It only rumbles through the ears of the inattentive without reaching the innards of their brains, much the same way untranslated Kafka is perceived by the ears of a hearing impaired infant. Novel ideas don't stand a chance when placed side-by-side with the base pragmatic pollution that free-enterprise and unchecked economic prosperity has boiled our language down to. It is an irony that for myself is painful and hope-massacring and for most others is beyond grasp and appreciation that widespread murder evokes not even the attention much less intervention of the same people who will stand in line for hours and spend what meager earnings this covertly totalitarian society has left them with to watch movies like MI3, containing much the same senseless bloodshed that can be seen for free the world over but, for reasons known only to the perpetrators of indifference, is ignored.

My observations reveal to me a society whose behavior is governed entirely by outside influences and cannot for its own benefit or dignity affect its own trajectory or azimuth from within -a free-floating, engineless vessel acting not unlike a hockey puck smacked around the ice by players owning no respect for said puck nor any sympathy for it when it cries out after ricocheting off the dashers. Our opportunity for redemption may have never made itself as real as in the wake of the September 11th attacks, but our society, so ill-prepared for calculated action or well-reasoned diplomatic initiative, embarked on a self-righteous "good fight" against a nameless and faceless foe and in historical retrospect, dispatched a chain of events that adhere to the hockey puck paradigm perfectly. The number of victims killed by American neo-imperialism far exceeds that number lost on September 11th, but this often spoken truth is seldom by the right ears heard.

To my knowledge or to my face, my writing has never been scrutinized or attacked by a free-thinking mind. This is as flattering as it is tragic, and although my writing has indeed suffered insult and injury, it never has by individuals that examine things through the lens of their own self-discovered, independent beliefs and values. I will remind all that "First Response …long overdue" speaks of sharp assaults whose passions and perspectives, though loudly expressed, were not products of respectable minds working for their own sake, rather they were end-result excrements of political manipulation and subversion that left the two voices who expressed them sounding less like credible critics than like conditioned, cultivated mouthpieces of an intricately corrupt political juggernaut that the writers themselves had not even a vague comprehension of. Every one of their arguments can be effortlessly traced back to a catchy political slogan, a commonly embraced but intellectually transparent fallacy, or a hackneyed drone-appealing TV commercial. The amusing event nonetheless left me with the understanding that all good writings will at best come under fire, at worst be flatly ignored, and that all good writers are rewarded with enemies and vendettas appropriately proportioned to their success.

There is another problem that all good writers face, if even only those good writers who have maintained the worth of their words by keeping their identities safely distanced from political and monetary pull: that absolute truth and lucrative truth may perhaps have some plasticity in the degrees to which they overlap, but are certainly not and have never been identical. The problem, that I wonder if this is a loss for all who read any written word or a gain for those few words on the absolute side (for they will always possess this element of exquisite beauty and rule the domain thereof exclusively), will never be resolved or even universally acknowledged not because it is unfounded or too abstract, but because the masses that read one or the other have consciously or unconsciously relinquished the ability to distinguish one from the other, if even they read them at all.

I thank the readers I don't have, that is, those readers whose minds have no application for free-lance, independent thought, for ignoring what I say. Your thought processes, busily suffering their predetermined fate of immersion into the feeding frenzy of pop-culture and receive-mode style entertainment (i.e., action films, reality TV, commercial and movie-star icons) that characterizes our generation, stands to gain nothing from laying eyes on plain and naturally-occurring beauty: absolute truth, free of cosmetic alteration.

All pessimism aside, the sense of obligation that I feel to continue my writing, unaffected by whether or not anyone reads it, stems in no small part from my belief in God: my adherence to his call to spread truth and love, express these through all mediums that I am able, especially those which I am talented, and cannot be discouraged by the apathy and occasional childish put-downs of the thoughtless masses. I take pleasure from seeing my words stand together, unified, working to convey to the world the truths not often enough expressed and the love and fellowship not often enough shared, similar to that pleasure of the machinist who so expertly finished a steel fabricant that he can see his own image staring back at him from the completed piece.

I work hard to craft sentences that can endure the test of time, like children that I hope will survive me. My fingers moving over these keys like a hammer striking an anvil are making this ear-splitting sound, sending sparks outward and wisps of smoke upward, leaving the ironwork, my sentences, tough and durable. The only way I know how to write, with a hot fire and a heavy hammer, may someday be overtaken by the efficiency and expediency of industry, but these new methods cannot leave the customer with the same satisfaction and warmth of something borne of sweat, skillmanship, and sincerity, delivered with the care and concern of its crafter from his heart -a measure of quality I hope the refined readers will always appreciate and demand for their dollar.

It has never been my aim to leave the reader confused or with means to reach any end of understanding other than what they can confidently call their own. I will accept gratitude for assistance in discovery, but never for constructing another's belief. If upon reading these words, one feels anger/hatred/discomfort toward their source, the writer, myself, then they should be critical of that specific emotion as though it were, itself, written word. The displeasure you feel is likely a child of the mother: self-awareness you are seldom face to face with, and the father: subconscious resistance to accept blame as your own –an unnatural behavior you are stuck with for which you may thank Western Culture. Whomever the parents, you cannot blame the writing, for if you felt no such knee-jerk discontent, the words would read innocuous.

Sympathy Reciprocates: A Case Study in Human Reasoning

2006-04-13T11:21:00.000-07:00

(apolitical)
Recently, two Marist seniors complained bitterly that their being forced to do community service as part of one of the core courses was unjust. They were brimming with animosity and discontent, directed especially at the professor responsible, and were clearly determined to take nothing of value from the assignment. These two asked for my opinion regarding forced community service. I responded, "There are worse things in life." They grudgingly agreed and immediately returned to their ranting.

My true feelings, that I felt no sympathy for these two whatsoever, I had to keep to myself because I knew the conversation would then devolve from one of reason and sensibility to growling and gnashing at one another. My belief is that sympathy reciprocates, and in this case none would be rendered for none had been received; details follow:

A fallen soldier's family has the sympathy of the civilian populace, but this sympathy is largely reserved and limited in its depth because of the deafening cliché, "There is no draft; he chose to join the armed forces. His family cannot cry out that this is 'unjust' or 'unfair' because he died of his own free will." Admittedly so, and likewise, complain that you are being 'forced' to do community service at the institution you attend, Marist College (your choice), by your instructor, Professor Mar Peter-Raoul (your choice, as well), to obtain a degree in Liberal Arts (do I need to say it again?), and you will receive from me the same amount of sympathy you’ve shown for that family’s claim that the death of their soldier was unjust: none.

My advice, if you care to hear it, is open your mind to education in all atmospheres. Most learning throughout your life will take place outside a classroom, but only if you allow it to. Confine your mind's growth to college courses alone and your education will prove very narrow and limited indeed.

"Forbid your life distractions from a too-intrusive world.
But forbid your life's presumptions to distract you from the world.
Don’t submit your only life to any one specific thing.
But seek balance and seek wholeness to know all and everything."

Forced community service turns out to be forced education; at the very least you will become extremely frustrated and angered, compound this with emotional helplessness because you feel powerless to fight against the forces causing this anger and frustration. There, now you know the struggles that the poor endure on a daily basis, and you will receive the same sympathy you have imparted unto them: zero. And you claim this cluster of circumstance is unjust? I beg to differ; I feel this is justice in its purest form.

So do your community service like doing hard time, if so you choose to do, but once you are paroled from human decency, just remember how sympathy reciprocates. From these experiences, you will know why you have none from me; you will learn at least this much.

Still You, We Remember; Still You Are Loved by all Whom You Knew

2006-04-10T11:49:00.000-07:00

Today began as every other day before it has, and as every other day hereafter likely will, but it is nonetheless different in its own regard. Today is the day you would have turned 24 years old, and we remember.

I am a social-reconstructivist and I venomously attack things that I perceive as corrupt or despicable. My words and actions evoke counterfire; in nearly all contexts, this dialogue is very much welcome albeit is often uncivil. On this day however, with respect to my friend and those who fell beside him, I am cordially inviting us all to lay our swords aside, just for a period of time, and render proper customs to those who sacrificed their lives in service to their homeland.

Dedicated to my friend, the fifteen other Marines of 3/25 that died August 3rd of last year, and all those others who have been killed in violent conflict, fighting for what they believe. The world remembers, and offers you its gratitude. I have written the following and dedicate to your memory,

Listlessly stares my eyes into infinity,
Locks with those of the setting sun.
For your eyes’ returning glance they hunt and languish in despair
They see nothing amid the glowing transient abyss before them.

Tumbles my tears on mournful descent parade;
My eyes allow them their escape, my cheeks the trails they gracefully pass over.
Cold and motionless, my face, but for those tears, a busy mind behind them
Thinking and remembering, reconstructing you, and in silent prayer:

To think you died, good friend of old;
Your blood spilled in the sand.
Your sacrifice, though brave and bold,
Defended not this land.

Did Death, her ugly majesty,
Embrace your soul in greed?
Did peaceful grace, in sympathy,
Give aid in time of need?

Dear friend, I beg, I plead, I pray,
To whom in heaven reign
That on that God-forsaken day,
You died, but spared from pain.

Dear friend, if only He’d discern
The passions of my heart,
Your life, to us, He would return.
To death, mine, I’d impart.

May God bless you, as I'm sure He has, for your presence (within His own domain) He now enjoys.
Sincerely,
Daniel Black

The Loss of Hope Becomes The Quest for Understanding

2006-04-05T19:19:00.000-07:00

Throughout the scorching African jungles that define Congo’s geography, a thick, nearly suffocating aura saturates the air and has lurked deep within the region for decades. This unseen omnipresence influences the local inhabitants as a phantom that summons them by the thousands, escorting them to their peril. A four year war that has taken the lives of 4 million left behind cliques of rebel militias that survive by killing entire villages and gleaning what resources their demise has left behind. Massacre, rape, burning and destroying, maiming and eating the bodies of the dead, these are not unthinkable occurrences, they are daily realities, and the rebels’ methods transcend the ranges of even our imaginations. It has been described by the U.N. humanitarian chief as “the world’s worst humanitarian crisis” and so it may be.

Journalist Bryan Mealer, in an article in April’s Harper’s, describes his encounters in the Congo, the images of Congo his eyes have absorbed, and the words of a few military Leaders that the U.N. has dispatched there to dispatch what goes on there. They fret and grimace as they discuss what they shoulder day-to-day. The officers warmly express their anxiety and gloom that have become a part of their lives and their identities. From reading their words, one becomes attuned to the soft and sympathy-evoking sounds a shattered spirit emanates. Mealer himself withdrew into this state of free-floating disparity himself once a sufficient period of immersion has transpired. His ambition dissolved as his vision, whatever it may’ve been, evaporated before his very eyes. It is interesting, though, to see what has succeeded these ambitions.

Bryan Mealer's words struck me in their similarity to those of Chris Hedges’ in his book, "War is a Force that Gives Us Meaning". These two talented writers share in their experiences witness to some of the most horrible and seemingly hopeless cases of inhumanity, magnified to an unimaginable extent. The images they have been forced to confront throughout their careers I cannot capture with my words. Human matter, dead and decaying, microorganisms feeding upon the charred, pulpy mass that weeks earlier was playful, innocent children. Struggling with persistent poverty in a geographical area laden heavily with valuable mineral resources (gold, diamonds, and things of the like) humble, defenseless communities have fallen victim to the most horrific atrocities: cold indifference to genocide, desensitization to grotesque, subhuman acts of murder, maiming and corpse-carving as though they were jackolanterns and methodically shucking the human species as ears of corn. The cost that these events have exacted of their observers is morbidly high: it has cost them there hope for stability in the areas of societal dysfunction they've witnessed, but that hope's departure has not left behind nothing. The odd consolation I have discovered is these outlying experiences have berthed identical agendas for the two journalists: not to affect change, but to develop an understanding. They return to ground zero, a small piece of hell they've found dwelling on earth, hoping gain a comprehension of things incomprehensible.

I believe the human mind loves understanding, just as beasts of nature love dominance and newborn infants love affection and attachment. The historical events these two men have come face to face with at their respective epicenters have engendered little desire to become agents of improvement; this may be because seeing such cataclysmic injustice on a sweeping scale makes an individual perversely aware of his/her smallness and insignificance, but it nonetheless leaves behind this innate desire to comprehend what they see.

The U.N has, since Bryan Mealer's work in the Congolese debacle started, increased it's involvement immensely. The U.N. workers have a tough job before them, perhaps one that is hopeless but spitefully still worthy of pursuit. The different militia groups they combat are perhaps completely beyond the reach of Western rationale and for this realization, the stages of diplomatic non-violence have been rightfully bypassed. Deep in the jungles of the Congo, many countries are systematically eradicating the indigenous fighters that terrorize the poor and defenseless villages. India and Pakistan, for example, work cooperatively by flushing the militiamen out of the jungles with Special Forces and then, once they’re exposed to aerial view, exterminating them with helicopter gunships. By Mealer's account, these insertions are highly effective in the making of men into meat, but to what end do they serve?

The strategies employed by these countries in their "peace-seeking" efforts are drawn on a pillar schematic that is identical to the ones of the militias they are up against. A struggle to terminate rampant violence uses the very same tools for resolution as are used for the causes of that resolution's necessitation. Simply stated, to put a stop to mass murder, we bring our guns; to eliminate the incidence of senseless death, we are flushing the perpetrators out of the jungles and massacring them. Do I endorse my beloved non-violent conflict-resolution strategy in this case? I will not naïvely presume that civil dialogue with these war parties can hope to untangle the situation, but I firmly believe that the potential outcomes of a campaign defined by the mutual intolerance of all involved parties are inherently limited. Through gun-fighting, we are confining ourselves to perpetual aggression that may only know peace if one or both of the opposing sides has met the demise of its/their entirety. Is peace hopeful in this case? If we kill them all, will history accept our actions as justified and forgive the use of genocide to end genocide? Is that even possible? Here's a more disheartening rhetorical question: Do we, as a culture so far from the violence, even care?

The injustices of the Congo run deep but also spread far. Some forms of injustice are not as easily diagnosed as others. The violence of the Congo is just that: violence; aggression in the pure sense of the word, but what has allowed it to evolve to such a desperate and dire extent? The inaction of the world's observers. As the Rasta gunfighters work alongside the Hutu to eradicate entire tribes, the local Congolese hang onto the fringes of survival, evading bullets, machetes, cholera, dysentery, and starvation, the U.N. fighters strive for peace firing bullets and dropping bombs, and the journalists are slowly allowing their sanity to escape them in exchange for something, some blueprint of humanitarian wholeness that speaks and conveys: "there's the answer, that is why; here, this is the design and how it all fits together". They are all losing their battles, and why is that? Which faction is to blame? The only group of individuals I haven't mentioned and that is everyone else, all of us who do nothing, who do not kill for profit, try to escape, kill for peace, or struggle to understand. It's ironic that we are not a part of the struggle even though we are a part of the world, but instead we associate ourselves through disassociation. Apathy to injustice is an agent of injustice, and although we do not fire the shots that cause the deaths of peaceful, innocent people, we do turn our attention to other things and ignore the fate of the defenseless. This cold-shoulder acceptance causes journalists' hope for change to rescind as hope for understanding emerges, an understanding they will never have like the peace the Congo will never know.

Words of Wisdom from the Doctor

2006-03-30T09:48:00.000-08:00

If you happened to be in the Commuter Lounge early yesterday afternoon, then you had the pleasure of discussing current events with Dr. Kent, director of the MPA business program here at Marist College, while enjoying his eccentric personality and sense of humor.

It is sometimes frightening to hear someone else speak aloud the very thoughts that are in your head, thoughts you had always presumed were yours and treasured as your own. Dr. Kent is a highly educated professor but is also extremely ethically grounded. I wish the word 'but' was the improper conjunction in that context but unfortunately, our world has proven otherwise.

Although I showed up a little late, I was able to catch up with the group and participate. Their discussion focused on the role of government in our economic system, if even it should have one at all, and to what extent it should impose restrictions on Corporate America; I'm sorry, the individual citizens that comprise Corporate America. One student at Marist College is of the belief that opportunity to prosper should be left completely unregulated because any regulations on one's potential to succeed would encompass an infringement on our God-given, constitutionally-guaranteed freedoms. This student went into great detail describing his vision of ideal government: one that doesn't involve itself or "intrude" on private business affairs because it has no jurisdiction therein. An interesting perspective, I think; on paper, it makes perfect sense.

On paper. Add to this two-dimensional theory a third dimension, that of reality, and include everything history has taught us. There are numerous social and societal designs that seem to work perfectly when drafted on the drawing board, but as soon as they are put into practice, they founder; why is that? I ascribe the pattern of failure to the fundamental complexity of man. While you may have contrived a utopia enjoyed by ink and parchment, it is likely not to succeed in the hands of people. The very idea that human interaction can, in exhaustive doctrinal texts, be sufficiently outlined to allow for governing not overseen, I believe, is very presumptuous, condescending even. Human nature is vastly complex and needs proper government, one transcendent of theory, in order for all those so stricken to get along as a civil society. But what is proper government?

The proper government. The role of government, more aptly put, raises all the questions that have no objective correct answers and could lead to perpetual dialogue. The previously mentioned Maristeer is a fan of limited government, a government that imposes as few limitations on the rights of the individual as is absolutely necessary. In the interest of freedom and justified by the idea that, while probabilities vary, everyone has the opportunity to prosper, he says the government should not redistribute wealth. I comprehend his argument and respect its merits because it makes logical sense.

This design however, while certainly aesthetic and attractive, seems flawed to me because it is an extreme, one of the goal posts on the spectrum of conceivable government/economic systemic infrastructure, so to speak. Socialism, the other goal post, has proven dysfunctional when promoted from theory and practically applied, and I'm fairly certain this goal post would not function well either. What, then, is the answer? Simple, the answer is the same for society as for the soccer player: kick it between the goal posts. I'm thinking a design of compromise, one respecting the profound depth and intricacy of the interpersonal and intrapersonal components of human spirit. Before I allow myself to delve too deeply into the abstract, dragging you all into the annals of my mind, I must redirect my blog (my mind's quite messy at the moment, you may not enjoy it in there!)

I propose a design that integrates the interests of the individual with the interests of the whole, striking a balance between community and individuality. Focusing exclusively on either one is ill-advised (the other one feels neglected and gets pissed). Socialism proved to us its imperfections through the collapse of the USSR; likewise, this ideation of unrestricted free-choice would prove undesirable through the lens of the masses because of wealth's natural tendency to become concentrated in some areas while sparse in others. This tendency is not by nature problematic or undesirable in a culture provided it is a culture of equality, but if equality exists in this design, it does so because it is naturally occurring. Remember, it cannot be imparted by the state because the state would have to overstep its bounds to impose it. So, is equality naturally occurring?

Ignore, tentatively, the issues of inequality our history has contrived (treat them collectively as a separate issue, but some other time, and we'll assume for now that the social/civil inequality of society in which we live is unnatural) My question asks, is everybody born with the same capacity for achievement and prosperity? In nature, the answer is no. Not all families have the same resources; their children are born into distinctly varied microcosms of society which, themselves, are not equal. This disparity in wealth distribution is, by society's interference, enhanced. Because of the design of current government, a wedge is being driven to further divide the socio-economic classes whereas a responsible government would function to tighten the gap.

Redistribution of wealth is essential if equality is ever to be achieved, and equality is an integral component of prosperity. The highest level of success is well-rounded success; even at the individual level, the scope of prosperity's strength is narrowed if those in its peripherals are bereft and weak. Is the ideal landscape a small, idyllic, but barely discernable feature surrounded by a charred, destitute wasteland? Isn't toast much better when the butter is spread evenly over the top, even improving that one bite that could otherwise be smothered underneath the entire stick? Don't allow yourself to be fooled by two-dimensional illusions and lust for unbridled freedom. If, through the withdrawal of government, you are confined to a corrupt and indifferent will, surrounded by lifeless possessions that only function to imprison you and distance you from society, then you don't know freedom; you know slavery and isolation.

Not alone with Sorrowful Remembrances...

2006-03-28T19:39:00.000-08:00

(apolitical)
My paternal grandmother Dorothy died ten years ago today; my memory reminded me this during Child Development Psychology class in the early AM. I reflected for a moment and then wrote into my little black book:

"Many things less than perfect, not a tragedy or cause for sorrow. The limitations of life are integral parts to its design. Grandma died ten years ago today; I wonder if anyone else remembers..."

Those ellipses appear in the book; I didn't discontinue the quote. It appears in its entirety, as do I where I appear. I was confident my family hadn't forgotten, but I was a little worried that our fast-pace living might have made it difficult to discern subtle but serene landscape features as we whizzed by. I am happy that it hasn't: many Emails I received today prove we have not forgotten.

Welcome Home!

2006-03-21T10:19:00.000-08:00

(apolitical)
This goes out to Anthony Jacobson, Michael Steen, Amoncio DaCruz, Justin Glass, Joshua Conklin, Brett Gavlak, Kenneth Butler, Ryan Gould, Jeffery Miller, and the numerous other Marines who are now, finally, back in the United States where they belong. May all the rest of the serviceman still there follow you, and be not too far behind.

A few Comments about Comments

2006-03-21T09:52:00.000-08:00

(apolitical)
After receiving a comment on yesterday's blog entry, "That Person I Thought You Were...", I realized that comments, while all are certainly welcome, some are not necessarily appropriate to be published. I appreciate the feedback I received from the individual who did not disclose to me his name yesterday, but for the future, all of you, please send me comments that are immature/vulgar/insensitive or offensive to others via Email only. Those comments that include socially derisive words I will remove from my blog, as I did the comment of yesterday. If you post something, please ensure it is respectful and intellectually insightful, otherwise I will delete it.

That Person I Thought You Were...

2006-03-20T11:25:00.000-08:00

(apolitical)
I saw you today; my heart jumped at first, but my mind soon regained its composure. My peripheral vision couldn't help but observe you and my ears heard you speak. Though I am still disgusted by your existence, you reminded me of someone. You reminded me of that person I thought you were. Months ago, I got to know you and therefore now know better; I know your true identity and am sickened by it. I liked you when I was wrong about you, misled, blissfully believing you were good, and I miss thinking that way about you. I wish you were someone other than who you are, but I am powerless to change that and presumptuous to think I have the right to.

Continue on your life's pursuit is my advice to you. Ignore my pleas to change/improve because you, no doubt, are focused on your own objectives, and so you should be, as well.

But if you go to Seton Hall, know that you're attending grad school in the town that I grew up in, just as I attend Marist in the town that you grew up in. Funny coincidences like these appear now and again in our pasts. Just like how you fought for my life at the same time I fought for your life, years before we had ever met, we stood back-to-back against the world; I will always marvel at that. That case exemplifies, I think, the best medium for our relationship: fighting for a common cause, a noble cause, miles apart, non-interactive, because we do not get along. Good luck in your endeavors; perhaps we shall cross paths again, years from now, near the campus of SHU in South Orange, NJ
...and avert our eyes.

With Three Years of Bloodshed Now Behind Us, What Lies Ahead?

2006-03-19T08:53:00.000-08:00

The news that isn't news echoes through the streets of the U.S. and the Middle East in remembrance of what occurred three years ago today: the United States invaded Iraq. The reasoning our leaders have offered us for instigating this conflict has changed many times since March 19, 2003, and it is always abstract and unclear. I deduce from this pattern of deceitful detail-variance that we can safely assume they have no honest reasons of which they are not too ashamed to share with their own citizenry.

From my assessment of this war's history and drawing from my own experience as a Marine who served within it, I believe this is a struggle that has so far only incurred costs; it has yielded no returns. The most precious of tangible things: the lives of loyal soldiers and nearby civilians, the material wealth of several countries, the irreplaceable natural resources we have expended en masse; along with the most precious of intangible things: the innocence and purity of cultures, the peace and acceptance they once shared, the stability of international ties; these have all been compromised or sacrificed, each to varying degrees, all to no avail. Whatever outcome we are seeking, we have not yet found. There is still no peace; there is now no Democracy. Resulting from an ironic sequence of events, the United States's effort to spread its Democracy to Iraq resulted in the loss of the very democracy its own citizens once enjoyed. Now it is we who need liberation!

The Bush administration has, since even before it swindled the presidency in 2000, planned to invade Iraq and topple Saddam; this is no longer labeled as a belief of irrationally minded far-leftists, it is substantiated by material evidence as objective fact. The Conyers Report to congress details how several key players in the Defense Department in conjunction with our nation's top republicans have carefully orchestrated the justification for Operation Iraqi Freedom and skillfully manipulated the fear and confusion engendered by the tragedies of 9/11 to achieve their agenda. Our own government has disgraced the memory of those that died in the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and "a field in Pennsylvania" by using their deaths as leverage to further corrupt policies, policies for which they could find no other justification.

The Defense Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, issued a letter to those who serve in our armed forces this morning thanking them for their dedication. I have read the letter and it sickens me. If he believes the words he has written, Donald Rumsfeld is clearly not of a healthy mind. The thought-process employed by most Americans in evaluating Al Qaeda has resulted in their affixing the label of "terrorist" to its militants without much effort, but that same thought-process would struggle desperately to determine what exact mental disorder(s) Donald Rumsfeld is stricken with. As a student of psychology, I offer the naive diagnosis that he suffers from paranoid schizophrenia accompanied by grandiosity. It is also very likely the defense secretary has a grandiose type of delusional disorder, or perhaps a narcissistic personality disorder; the possibilities are potentially limitless*. His assessment of "progress on all fronts" testifies to the presence of some or all of these afflictions; "progress on all fronts" is a laughable conclusion, indicates he is delusional, and reminds us that he has never, himself, worn a uniform. He actually describes the beliefs of foreign peoples, beliefs that we have an admittedly narrow understanding of, as "twisted ideology". That word choice alone guarantees the persistence of bloodshed, a persistence the Defense Secretary probably desires. He claims we will never forget those wounded in combat. He is probably right; they will never be forgotten because they will never stop tugging on the sleeves of politicians, begging for the continued medical care they so desperately need but cannot receive because V.A. programs endure funding cut after funding cut**, effectively denying the victims of Donald's senseless war their necessary medical care. The casual and impersonal tone he undertakes in expressing his condolences for the fallen 2317 serviceman of this war to their surviving comrades is heavily laden with hackneyed words and phrases. That Donald Rumsfeld has never sustained a loss is transparent; his efforts to soothe veterans are artificial and betray that he feels nothing of compassion. Even worse and further proving his lack of humanitarian concern, he makes no effort to extend any form of sympathy or to even acknowledge the innocent Iraqis we have mistakenly slaughtered during our occupation; these losses mean nothing to him because the casualties are not American, they are Arab. The message he is sending through their omission from his letter is the bodies are not "Us", they are "Them", so to Donald Rumsfeld and his Defense Department, they do not matter. The number of "them" is, itself, unknown to us because, as expressed by General Tommy Franks, we consciously turn a blind eye.

Throughout the entire duration of the Iraqi war, the administration has been desperately trying to rationalize it. The fictitious tales they've offered us have undergone several overhauls through the years, often altering their core principles to such a severe extent that they become unrecognizable, but the only details that never change are the ones that make the least sense. An attempt to impart American lifestyles and build an American-sembling political structure in Iraq is, by its very nature, absurd. Pulitzer-prize winning journalist Anthony Shadid points this out in his book "Night Draws Near" when he illustrates that the Iraqi people were already like Americans prior to the American invasion. They were our Middle Eastern counterparts, having the most in common with us, but because of our government's pig-headed bigotry, Iraq is now host to our Middle Eastern adversaries, having the most cause to hate us.

So, as concerned citizens from all over the world take to the streets and remind the rest of the world that this conflict is still here and is still gravely unjust, I propose we all reflect on the past three years of our lives and think about what our government has done. With our tax dollars and silent consent, they have crushed a nation, killed thousands, dissolved global tranquility, advanced ethnic-based hatred, alienated our European support, lied and covered their exposed lies with more complex lies, sullied America's name and inverted America's inner identity, exploited their own people and cultivated those people's fear and anxiety, and their character and style alone in doing all this ensures continued unrest for the years, perhaps generations even, to come. What has this accomplished? We have Saddam. Ask yourself, after putting the costs I've listed beside the three words that precede this sentence, were we ripped off? Perhaps paid a bit too much? These questions, while important for consideration, should not occupy are minds nearly as much as the following questions, the centrally thematic and perhaps exclusively pivotal questions that conceivably own the only keys to our society's redemptive-hope: What lies ahead? Where are we going to go from here? What are we, as Americans, going to do to mend what has been so seriously and catastrophically mangled? What will we demand of our government to recover what has been lost? Once men like Rumsfeld have been gathered up and disposed of, what will we do to prevent the recurrence of such sadomasochism rising to positions of geopolitical influence again? Is merely impeaching our current president going to be enough or do we have to go farther to procure for the world the justice it deserves? We must find answers to these questions if we hope to ever reestablish the United States as a country worthy of international trust and restore our image as deserving of the world's real estate we now stand on.

* Donald's Language skills are notably exceptional for an individual so afflicted; he is nonetheless symptomatic, especially seen in his profound severances of thought and emotion, and the gross disparity between the reality he perceives and the reality in which the rest of us live.

** These assessments of V.A. funding examine more than the single variable of the budget's bottom line (which actually indicates increases, but those increases are insignificant). I've determined these marginal increases are actually funding cuts by taking several prevalent variables into account i.e., the significant increases in the number of veterans in need of those funds, the inflation of medical costs themselves, the increases in veterans' out-of-pocket "co-payments" which are falsely represented by the government as "budget increases. All of these lead to a smaller per-veteran distribution of available benefits, essentially a complicated methodology of cutting funds.

A Little Reminder for the Democrats

2006-03-14T20:42:00.000-08:00

Senate Majority leader Bill Frist pulled a shady hat-trick and exposed the true colors of Democratic senators when he demanded a vote on Senator Feingold's proposal to censure President Bush. The recent actions of these two men have caused an avalanche of political reflection, extrapolation, theorizing, and rationalizing, but they all equate to a simple conclusion: democratic senators have cold feet. They are more concerned with re-election than they are with doing the jobs they were elected to do in the first place.

I want my message to be clear - Rationalize all you want; do so until the expiration of your term. Let them be your dying words, extending from the day you failed your citizens until the day you draw your final breath; I don't care. You failed your office and you failed your people. I want you to know I didn't elect you merely so you could pursue re-election. I elected you to represent me and you defaulted on my expectations.

That's all for now; I feel better.

Worldly Justice Beyond Our Reach, Supernatural Justice Beyond Milosevic's Escape

2006-03-13T11:51:00.000-08:00

Slobodan Milosevic, son of successfully suicidal parents and acclaimed "Butcher of the Balkans", dies of a heart attack at age 64. Tragic, I suppose; I never knew the man, and I don't feel guilty for the fact that I haven't shed any tears. There is however a public outcry because he will never face justice for the crimes he has committed as the former leader of Yugoslavia. On CNN today, people phoned in from all over the world blaming the Hague Tribunal for dragging their feet, even calling the tribunal itself a "farce" in more than one case. 'Milosevic slipped through our hands' is the echoing mantra.

Don't blame the tribunal; let the men do their jobs. In prosecuting international criminals, especially those as high profile as our Milosevic, let the record reflect that everything was covered and all procedures were performed and completed properly. For sure, on the issue of the Balkans, Milosevic shoulders responsibility for the deaths of hundreds of thousands and the homelessness of millions. He is responsible for four senseless wars and furthered the intolerance several cultures have for one another that endures still today. A man that could not be reasoned with by our diplomats, he was described as pure evil, a monster. But I hope the international courts of justice will never sacrifice their integrity in the interest of expedience, not even extreme cases such as this. Bear in mind, numerous international criminals that appear before such tribunals will be perceived as monsters, but we must maintain the consistency and purity a court requires, even if it means the trial survives the defendant. If we allow courts to cut corners so that our thirst to punish criminals is quenched, the justice we sire may itself be unjust.

Take solace, those of you who feel that justice was denied on March 11th, and know that justice has been denied only in this world; it most surely awaits him in the next. Virtually every known faith denomination includes some form or other of "life audit" at life's end. This is basically a review of one's life and a measurement of how it stacks in comparison to the prescribed lifestyle outlined in the faith's sacred texts. Very few are tolerant of genocide or of gross misinterpretation of their doctrine. Milosevic was Serbian Orthodox, which, because of missionary activity of generations past, shares significant overlap with the Christian faith. Succinctly put, Justice is headed Milosevic's way, like so many judicial tsunamis; we can all relax. Look upon this world, and the world after this world, through the spiritual eyes of Milosevic, as I have in this poem I wrote. This is for you Slobodan, a bit of confidence for the next tribunals you shall face:

I ran till I was out of breath
Escaping disrepute.
The world, hot on my heels, gave chase
My life was their pursuit.

My crimes it knew; it ardently
endured to capture me.
But I, the quicker of us two,
Escaped, and am still free.

So now, the world, with teary eyes,
Accepts its shameful fall.
And I, the victor, laughingly,
know justice? not at all!

But years have passed, and redefined
The outcome of the chase,
And through their course, revealed to us
The truth behind the race.

The world and I, we had presumed
That I had got away.
My life, gone now, my spirit stands
Alone on Judgment Day.

The "afterlife tribunal" knows
The crimes from which I ran,
And swiftly, justice, they'll impose
Through supernatural hands.

I am a Christian and I pass no judgment on him; he answers only to his creator for the deeds of his life. Through this entry I am merely trying to offer some perspective and hopefully closure to those who feel befuddled by the recent Milosevic-related events.

I Am vs. I Believe -The Unseen Trial Within Today's Political Debates

2006-03-12T16:54:00.000-08:00

Spring Break began Friday, March 10th and I was distributing flyers the following morning with my father and sister just outside the South Orange train station. We took part in an effort to spread information about peace-seeking events this upcoming weekend in Maplewood (neighboring town). From about 11am to noon, we had a table set up with buttons, pamphlets, a book my father has with World Trade Center photos, and a donation coffee can, all of which we stood around while engaging the passers-by and getting the word out. Beautiful weather and high foot-traffic helped us and we were very successful; the majority of those we interacted with happily accepting our flyers, making us feel in good company as far as political view points go.

The majority but not the entirety, there were a few who seemed apathetic, and one who actually seemed in strong opposition to the idea of peace. Sitting on a nearby park bench, he discussed his distaste for us with friends of his which I was able to overhear. It was typical pro-war talk, inclusive of all the quintessential cliches like "Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan... we should just kill them all; it will make the world safer." We were slandered for loving peace (as though that were weakness) and, of course, were implied to be treasonous. He expressed a frightening and disheartening system of neo-imperial beliefs (thankfully a minority in this town), revealing a deeper, seldom recognized problem with day-to-day political dialogue.

Our beliefs were not in his conversational crosshairs, we were. Our interpretations of his words did not place his beliefs in our disrepute, they placed him there. We did not exchange any words but there was nonetheless a firmly established opinion owned by both sides, ours and his, concerning the other. These opinions were not purely focused on political beliefs, respecting that the other individual is a person first; they delved deeply into the personal realm, causing us to falsely perceive him (and probably him to perceive us) as the personification of the belief/perspective with which we disagree.

The Fundamental Attribution Error, a psychological term identifying the tendency people have for attributing the causes of someone's behavior to internal character flaws rather than environmental influences, has become pervasive in the arena of political debate. Admittedly, I am extrapolating this term's meaning in applying it to beliefs, but the concept holds true. Consider the suppositions: he "is a bigot, a war-monger, a narrow-minded imbecile" just like I "am a scared kitten, an ally of Al Qaeda, suffering from 9/11 amnesia" rather than he "believes we belong in Iraq and that the war on terror is being fought properly" or I "think we need better justification for overseas military operations and that we must hold our politicians accountable." What the second pair of quotes permits that the first forbids is the acceptance of one another, despite ideological differences, as loyal Americans who can potentially be united. In the case of "he is" or "I am", such a compromise is hopeless.

It is important to acknowledge and respect the humanity and dignity of others prior to beginning any argument or discussion. What constructive outcomes can one hope for otherwise? The uncivil dialogue may ensue perpetually while the perspectives of the involved individuals remain stationary because they are not the subjects of the dialogue, the individuals themselves are. Argue passionately and persuasively, you may, but you will never convince him he is not a man or that he is evil or ignorant. You might smirk at the absurdity of that but this is what you are ardently pursuing though you fail to even realize it. Poke, prod, and ponder all you will; contemplate my words, formulate your own theories, and then challenge mine. Convince me I am incorrect, I invite you. I will advise you, however, that what I believe is the product of my experiences and what I have absorbed through listening, seeing, feeling and reading, and are always subject to change. What I am is that which I am and that I have always been; I am and you will never convince me otherwise.

Turning our Backs on the Ghosts of Abu Ghraib

2006-03-09T16:35:00.000-08:00

There are many symbols that owe their origin to the Global War on Terror, among the most prominent of which is a U.S. soldier, smiling at the camera, with a thumbs up sign at the end of one arm and an Iraqi detainee attached to the other by a leash. I will not name the soldier in the world famous picture because the soldier is actually us. In an abstract, but not overly convoluted interpretation of circumstances, The United States of America holds the Arab world on a leash, debasing their very humanity, and is smiling!

The 4500 detainees who are currently guests at Abu Ghraib are slated for transfer to a new facility in a matter of a few months. They will join 127 "high value" Arab trophies that America warehouses at her HQ near Baghdad's airport, among them, Saddam Hussein, Iraq's ousted dictator. Upon completion of transfer, the U.S. will turn the Abu Ghraib facilities over to the Iraqi Government and permanently close the books on our end. Abu Ghraib will cease to exist; the nightmare shall come to an end. I want pose the question, as this drama approaches completion: As we leave Abu Ghraib, what are we leaving behind? Imagine for a moment the crumbling, hell-resembling, freakish facility, surrounded by miles of impassable desert, isolated from the world. How will it look when it appears in the rear-view mirror, getting smaller and smaller? Will it eventually be lost from sight, lost from memory? Perhaps in time it shall; God willing, we will move on. One thing, however, cannot be argued: Ghosts never die.

The relocation of these detainees has been described by Lt. Col. Johnson, a Baghdad-based spokesman for the military, as an attempt to improve security and alleviate logistical complexity, a well-reasoned move, I believe. Caveat: what is lost? What will remain there after we have left? What might attempt to follow us? What are we running from? I am unsure of the precise answers to these questions, but I can feel it. It is in the air and it is between the words of the politicians, lurking in the pauses they take while addressing the press. They will never be completely gone, not even from the passage of time for they are ghosts. The ghosts of Abu Ghraib will haunt this society no matter how far away we haul their survivors. Logistics and security are futile excuses for attempting to escape the crimes of the past; we will always have to live with the remnants of what we buried at that ungodly place, knowing we caused their demise. Not the least of these tragic losses is the identity we once had as the "good guy" fighting against the evil of terrorism.

Friends on the surface, Foes underneath

2006-03-08T20:21:00.000-08:00

(apolitical)
Today I have nothing for you all but a message I want to express to a special friend. I value our friendship Amy Joy, more so than I do most other things in my life. Even though we see each other less frequently now, I want you to know that I think you're an exceptional person and an admirable Christian. That's why I feel it is horrible that the way people treat you to your face and the things they say behind your back are so grotesquely incongruous. I would never betray our friendship and I hope you know this; I think the world of you. You can confide in me anytime and trust me anytime you are in need. May God bless you now and always; your friend, Danny Joe.

AIDS: a plentiful source of bad news

2006-03-07T06:02:00.000-08:00

An interesting article appears in this month's Harpers on the issue of AIDS and "The Corruption of Medical Science". It seems writer Celia Farber has overturned a few stones and made some highly news-worthy discoveries. Plot summarizing is really not my thing so I will make no such attempt here, though I highly recommend reading the article; it is very thought-provoking.

What fascinates me is the staunch opposition this article has met from AIDS activists who sharply criticize Farber and a handful of key scientists and players she identifies in the AIDS research debacle. Their attacks on Farber serve to substantiate her article's claims, the crux of which she clearly sums up toward its end:
"Attempts to rigorously test the ruling medical hypothesis of the age are not met with reasoned debate but with the rhetoric of moral blackmail... Moral zeal rather than scientific skepticism defines the field." I propose that it is not only permissible, but rather it is absolutely essential that we subject the bedrock, practice-defining theories of any issue such as AIDS with a battery of painstaking scientific tests to verify their accuracy and reliability. Labeling those who attempt to do so as opponents of curing/containing the associated epidemic is absolutely absurd and unfounded. If the theories are sound, they will stand; if they are faulty, they will crumble as they ought to. Whether its scientific facets are dead on target or completely off the radar, Celia Farber's article successfully illuminates the current problem caused by romanticizing and fanaticizing something that ought to be left objective and free of passion and emotion.

As Harvey Bialey, the founding scientific editor of Nature Biotechnology asserts, "Science is amoral and should be. There is no right and wrong, only correct and incorrect." This dispassionate approach might cause the activists to cringe or lash out, but it is well-reasoned. Moral and ethical arguments certainly have their place, but in the realm of science, accuracy is paramount. It owns the high ground and does not share its domain.

The on-going global issues AIDS presents are laced, almost homogenously, with depressing plot developments; from every aspect, the medical/biological, the political, and even the social/psychological, AIDS is synonymous with 'bad news'. I never before realized, though, how far-reaching this bad news potentially is. The movement to fight AIDS is, itself, divided and that is disheartening. Critics who desire to examine the validity of the AIDS-related paradigms are ostracized for it, even though they share a common goal with those who ostracize them.

***** Hypothetical Situation *****
To put this into perspective, I will draw a correlation that hits closer to home. The article includes extensive coverage of an alleged case of wrongful death associated with a drug "Nevirapine" that (supposedly) functions to reduce the probability of AIDS transmission from mother to child. The family of the victim has filed a civil suit against several involved organizations, one of which is St. Jude's Children's Research Hospital. These are only allegations and I do not have the facts; I will not offer an opinion regarding St. Jude's' practices because such an opinion would not be an informed one. But suppose I raise the question in one of my Circle contributions, merely asking the question of whether or not St. Jude's could have made a catastrophic error. As with the AIDS issues above, if St. Jude's' honor is clean, it will stand, but it their honor is discovered plagued when placed under the microscope, St. Jude's will crumble as it ought to. A realistic outcome, however, is that I would be branded an enemy of children and the efforts to save their lives, tarred and feathered as a skeptic and a sadist, and would probably be well advised to carry a weapon for self-defense around the Marist College community. There is a serious problem with this cause/effect model, and that is the chance that I am right. St. Jude's is essentially insulated from justice in this case because it is distanced from scrutiny by its reputation. In the event of impropriety, St. Jude's will face no negative repercussion, and this passively reinforces wrong-doing; what may begin as an accident could gradually become a pattern of lazy misconduct resulting from the absence of being held accountable. I'll remind you I harbor no skepticism of St. Jude's beyond what is reasonably presented by the facts, but I think this example adequately points out the subtle, often unseen paradox that, even when fighting with the best of intentions, if he is not properly informed or reflective, the greatest opposition faced by an activist is the activist himself.

I want everyone to know that I enjoy happy stories about combating the AIDS Virus and the saving of terminally ill children's lives as much as anyone, but these stories are of less interest to me than unhappy stories rooted in truth. We must know the extent to which these two groups of stories overlap but we will never have that knowledge unless we possess the social fortitude and good sense of the innate isolation between morality and science to ask.

A Civil and Delightful Debate

2006-03-02T07:39:00.000-08:00

My hat is off this morning to Kevin, Matt, Alex, and anyone else who helped put together last night's event at SC-348/348A. I think our discussion was very productive and informative; if properly followed up, it may lead to great things, and I would love to see those things become realized.

The aforementioned event was an open forum that focused on the broad topics of "foreign policy", "environment", and "humanitarianism". The talks were encouraged to follow the interest of the participants; we pursued the specific topics of the ethnically offensive political cartoons depicting Islamists with bombs for turbans and the issue of free speech, oil dependency and the proper way to end it, and lastly, a can of worms I personally opened, the issue of torture and its place in the war on terror. So many well-reasoned points were argued last night, and in such a proper, respectful tone. I don't feel I can do each service in trying to recount all of them, but if you want proof, I highly recommend you attend the next forum, probably to take place after spring break.

Now, the issue of torture and its place in the war on terror. In the discussion yesterday evening, the arguments I heard in torture's support were typical in the sense that they were ill-informed. I'd like to offer a principle I think is difficult to refute: if you're going to support the cause of torture, you'd better have the facts. This is a very serious issue and if you have the desire to take a stance on it, you have a moral obligation to have that stance grounded in more than just Hollywood movies and pop-culture-deep philosophy. You're talking about the lives of human beings, the United States international repertoire, the ethical fabric of a nation, and the terms upon which the war on terror itself is being fought. Keep in mind the following if endorsing torture:
1. Torture is not a sound method of attaining intelligence. Any intelligence sired from torturing the informant is fundamentally unreliable because the subject is only saying what he thinks is necessary to protect his own life, he sees his captor as evil and is motivated to deceive, and he may be driven insane by the methods of torture.
2. Torture as a means of sending a message to the Islam radicals does not convey to the world that we are tough or that we mean business. It reinforces the terrorist methodology by adopting it, enhancing their will to fight; it substantiates their belief that Americans are evil and ought to be exterminated.
3. It must be kept in mind that the prisoners we keep are not terrorists, they are detainees. True, there are terrorists mixed into that populace, but there is a lot of innocence as well and the line between the two is not so easily drawn, it's not always capable of being drawn at all. When you question a prisoner for intelligence, you might be questioning an innocent citizen of a foreign state; you don't know.
4. The inclusion of torture in our state's doctrines alienates our alliances. We cannot hope to keep the support of NATO and the UN or foreign democracies if we torture the foreigners we incarcerate. We will have to engage this enemy on our own, with no allies to our right or left, no coalition at our back, and no cultural values in our heart.

Bear in mind, the list above details only the objective consequences of becoming a torture society. I have completely left out issues that spur debate and controversy, however I hope carry the most weight in the minds of U.S. citizens: the issues of cultural morality, belief in peaceful diplomatic paradigms, the appeal of unconditional policy that encourages non-violent conflict resolution, etc.

A Proposal of Circumstances most Extraordinary

2006-02-23T17:14:00.000-08:00

An interesting plot development has recently come to pass; as the circle readery is well aware, my responsive letter to the two outspoken conservatives (mentioned in the 2/17 blog entry) was published today. This has led to something unforeseen.

I want my loyal readers to know that for the majority of my life, I have found myself in disagreement with a multitude of others. To those with whom I harbor such disagreement, I have always endeavored to be civil, but never their friend. Apparently this strategy is not shared by all, but let me offer you a little narrative that can better justify my approach:

In Iraq, I was assigned to work alongside another Corporal that nobody else could get along with. The level of incompatibility he shared with the entire chain seemed insurmountable. However, he and I managed to function as a team and complete the tasks that had been assigned to us. As time went by, we developed something of a working-friendship. But, on the last day we worked together, we admitted the initial disdain we had for one another was still there and still today, we agreed the likelihood of us sharing a beer or a coffee or anything at all in the future, should we ever cross paths, is cipher. Shook hands and parted company, he is not missed, and I don't imagine I am either.

The moral of the story is that you selected a course; stay the course. You may have gone astray a time or two, but redirect your azimuth, don't assume you can plop down back on proper bearings just because you detected your miscalculation. You need to recover the ground that was lost; enjoy the journey.

My Thanks goes out...

2006-02-21T08:32:00.000-08:00

Today, my thanks goes out to Tiffany and Rebecca; you both did a superb job. Thank you for your invaluable help and dedication; Gardner would have been proud.

Joe Connell and I led an interesting discussion on creative writing yesterday in the Commuter Lounge. We had some fantastic input from a handful of the school's innovative minds. My thanks to Jenn for her perspective on Thoreau; she helped me come to the realization that reading Thoreau may only be beneficial to readers who are aptly prepared to comprehend him. I think we can all benefit from a little more Thoreau, I just don't know if we're ready for it. Another significant evolution in our talks involved the issue of following grammatical rules to the "t", vice breaking free of English diction decorum's shackles to express yourself freely. We arrived at the conclusion that neither is the best avenue of expressing yourself through writing; striking an appropriate balance between the two is optimal. The point that I really hope I imparted unto the group is to always read and to always write. The human mind is such a beautiful thing and language such a formidable means of sharing that beauty.

And lastly, my thanks goes out to the numerous people who read the Circle and provide me with constructive feedback, be it positive or negative, through the medium of letters to the editor, Email, Facebook messages, and my favorite: face to face discussion. Our collective consideration of the world can only lead to a better reasoned approach to properly living within it.

First response... (long overdue)

2006-02-17T18:57:00.000-08:00

A new edition of the "Circle" surfaced today, as often happens on Thursdays, and included another liberal column of mine, but this is not news. What is news, exciting news even, is two letters to the editor that refer to my last column, "Defense Redefined, President's Efforts at Literary Distortion Achieved". I began my rebuttal only hours after reading these letters; it will likely be published in next week's "Circle", so I will spare the details. I will say however that my military service, which I have never made mention of in previous articles, will most definitely be included in the rebuttal. The hour is most certainly at hand. Just when I'd thought the level of political apathy at Marist College was strong enough to knock down a bull elephant, opportunity comes knocking-no, banging down the door- for political debate. The immature tones of their letters notwithstanding, I am optimistic that some very significant dialogue can come of these "first shots of returned fire" from the right.

To those who believe my pursuit is futile, that republican propaganda's influence is insurmountable I would like to offer a bit of baseball symbolism:

"This ballgame’s innings are potentially limitless; it will continue so long as we are willing to repeatedly take the field, no matter how far we fall behind. They are powerless to win unless we allow ourselves to lose"

You might think me naive, but I hold on to hope that through the collective efforts of enough diligent minds and clean hearts, concerned citizens can impart social change and conceivably reestablish a culture's right prudence and efficacy, no matter how decrepit that culture has become. The letters that responded to my liberal column this week testify to this belief, perhaps in an abstract, backwards fashion, but they testify nonetheless. Conservatives are often pigeon-holed as narrow-minded, politically disconnected or misguided, or just plain too lazy to develop an informed opinion and speak up. In defiance of this stereotype, two conservatives have read an overtly liberal opinion column, reflected upon it, and wrote well-researched letters in refute, and I praise them for it. I can tolerate the vulgar and insulting tone as well as the fact that they are poorly reasoned and groundless because at least they reveal effort on the part of their writers to think critically. An infant’s first steps are always crude, unsteady, unrefined, and amusingly silly looking, but aren’t they universally required if one hopes to ever run a marathon? I hope, however, that the steps that follow eventually progress into something more mature and respectable; I would consider it a shame to see, again, one of my old proverbs legitimized:

"The decision to withhold from us your words, kind sir, would be most prudent in your case, for so doing conceals from everyone your true identity as an imbecile. Bear in mind always, with tight lips, that their never parting company is your most assured defense against being properly labeled vilely ignorant."

Be sure to get your hands on next week's "Circle" if you find this sort of dialogue as delectable as I do. If you are anything like the two conservatives who have spoken out against me, I will share with you something I wrote last night before bedding down: "If it bothers you that I write these things, you should know that it bothers me even more that I am forced to write them."

Happy V-Day, Everybody

2006-02-14T10:48:00.000-08:00

My first Valentines Day since the big divorce last July; I never imagined I would feel so... single. My Blogress will have to wait for another day. I had it in my mind to introduce the "abstraracters" of this blog, that is, the little intangible ideas that will come and go throughout the entries herein, presented as people, for I feel people are the basic unit of our clearest understanding. I digress; the casting will have to wait for the coming of a non-valentine's day.
Right now I am sitting in Marist College's Library, with about 5 minutes left on my shift at the circulation desk. I wish you could see me because I am clad in black, head to toe, my form of protest against this holiday. At midnight I posted an "away message" on my AIM profile that will stand all day and night until I remove it at, again, midnight. It has a lot of esoteric references, most would make no sense to the masses, but it ends with this poem I wrote last night: "Lonely but pure, myster'us but true - Unknown to the masses, forsaken by you - Brutally Beaten, but struggling still - Success I know not, but someday I will." - again, a bit esoteric, but I think it gets my emotions across. To view the AIM away message in it's entirety, check AOL instant messenger profile "myownwarden".

First Steps & Gratitude

2006-02-09T19:24:00.000-08:00

"My first blog entry, ever. The excitement level is supremely high... "
- My words from the evening this blog was created. Much thanks to Evan Pritchard, my ex-professor who made this possible. The words that follow endeavor to convey to the world my relationship with the world and its creator, expressing ways in which we can improve the tranquility of the former thus growing closer to the latter. Through poetic beauty and creativity, this serves as a beacon of Views and Values salient to all walks of life that men and women from every faith can embrace. Scattered liberally throughout for self-flattery and comic relief are a few catchy lines of cracker-jack wisdom that I have conjured over the years; I hope you enjoy them.