Blogs entries are in chronological order
September 1, 2004: (To go to Scott's personal homepage: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb )
The semseter begins in two days, the summer has flown by. This "blog" is being kept primarily for me to reflect on the ideas and information in the course "Children and War," but will touch on a number of ideas. Web logs, or "blogs" are not the same thing as an academic journal. Rather, they are a mechanism for people to express ideas, rant, reflect, or write whatever they want, much like a personal journal. Students who keep blogs can send me a link to their blog site, and I'll post the link on the page (assuming the blog is appropriate). It is often said that there are more blogs on the net than people who read them, and that may be true. Nonetheless, I thought it might be fun for students to read what a professor thinks about issues and ideas in a manner that isn't the traditional detached classroom setting. Here I'll state my opinions, take sides on issues, and let you see what I really think.
One reason that could be dangerous is that it could intimidate students reading this who disagree with me. Now, when I was a student, I would often disagree with my professors. They never punished me for that, and in fact respected my willingness to take a stand and not try to simply follow what I thought they believed. Differences of opinion are to be honored on university campuses more than anywhere else. Freedom of thought and speech is essential if we are going to really put ideas to the test, critically reflect on what we believe, and try to understand what's going on in this world. Disagreement is necessary if academia is to function. So if write something like "I think Dick Cheney is a horrible Vice President," and you're the head of the UMF Dick Cheney fan club, don't be afraid to state your disagreement. The only things to keep in mind are that disagreements should be respectful (don't call others names or dip to the level of personal attacks on other students or faculty), and that any body stating any opinion should be able to back it up with arguments and logic.
That last part might seem a bit tricky too. Face it, I've studied politics for decades (yikes, time zips by!), and even in high school I was a good debator. I bet I could be wrong on something, and still out debate a number of students. That's the tricky part of academia and the exchange of ideas; sometimes skill at the use of words and at debating seems more important than the actual quest for the truth. All I can say to that is that I keep that in mind. If I challenge you when you hold a different opinion, that's a sign of respect, that I'm asking you to explain why you believe what you do. If the words don't come, or if you get confused trying to put an explanation together (not because you don't have one, but because you just aren't used to having to on the spot explain your thnking), just say, "Let me think about it," or give your best shot. I know discussion and debate can be intimidating, especially if one of the authority figures in class takes a position different than yours. But the only way you get better at it is through practice, and by developing the confidence to disagree with an authority figure on the basis of your own thinking and analysis of evidence. Believe it or not, we professors actually value that much more than valuing agreement. Bottom line: think for yourself, be open to new ideas (we promise we'll be too), and be willing to state your ideas without fear that you might disagree with one or both of the instructors.
That's all for today. I'll try to get into some substance about my thoughts on this course and the issues involved.
September 2, 2004: The semester is underway! Lost in the discussion of the coming elections is the worsening situation in Iraq, and I find it surprising, and sometimes disheartening, how Americans shift from one issue to the next without really contemplating what's going on. I don't think this really is the fault of most Americans though, the media feeds this by how they report. Rarely do we get good background information, especially on foreign affairs issues. If they spent as much time digging into the roots of the Iraq situation as the Kobe Bryant case, we'd have a much better informed public. Our media gives us soap operas rather than important information, it seems.
One thing is on my mind today, and it connects a bit with the last entry. The political discourse in America really seems to have become bitter and divided. That's troubling because democracy rests on the notion of compromise and acceptance that it's OK if the other side is in power, one can work towards the next election. If that sense of tolerance and compromise becomes broken, democracy is weakened and more vulnerable. Given that we're in an era where dangers are new and real, the biggest threat to freedom might not come from terrorists or other "enemies," but from our own reactions to events, or our fear of what might happen.
Who is at fault for this division? Is it the entertainer/sensationalists like Rush Limbaugh and Michael Moore, who have discovered that sensationalism sells? Is it one of the political parties, the Democrats for being angry about the 2000 election, or the Republicans for demonizing "liberals" and attacking the patriotism of those who disagree with the war? Here in Maine, I think things aren't as bad as other places in the country. We have two Republican Senators who have a history of working for compromise between the two parties, and two Democrat Congressmen who have a similar reputation. They used to say as Maine goes, so goes the nation -- it would be nice if the rest of the country could emulate Maine.
I think the reason for the division is a choice that the US made after World War II, and one which was embraced by both the Democratic and Republican party: the choice to become a superpower, and try to shape world affairs. Super power politics is a form of imperialism. Not the old kind where you just conquer and colonize a country (though the Iraq war looks a bit like that old kind, at least until we truly hand over power), but the kind where you try to control how other countries can act. We can have nuclear weapons; Iran and North Korea cannot. Iraq should have the kind of government we think appropriate; it's OK to use our awesome military power to try to shape how the world develops. That kind of policy is not conducive to democracy in the long run. It requires a lot of centralization of power, and choices to get involved in regions that really are not important to the lives of average Americans. The only way governments can sell that kind of policy is to promote fear (fear of Communism, fear of terrorism) and make it sound as if it isn't an effort to control other parts of the world, but defend the US. But that's simply not the case, especially today. Ultimately we have to decide if we want to be a democratic Republic, or a kind of empire. The latter is tempting, especially to power brokers in DC (in a future blog I'll go into my experiences working in DC and how I think the psychology of power poisons politics these days), but very dangerous to the ideals our country was founded upon.
I've also got some thoughts on Zlata's diary, but will write about that in a future blog. Thanks for reading!
September 3, 2004: Today Russian commandos stormed a school where Chechen rebels, allied with other terrorist organizations, had taken as many as 1000 children and adults hostage. September 1 is historically the first day of school in Russia, so many parents were along with their kids for opening day ceremonies. I cannot for the life of me understand why anyone would take a school like that. As wrong as the acts of September 11, 2001 in America were, I can at least understand why someone would hit the Pentagon (a military target) or the World Trade Center (symbolic center of western capitalism). But a school? How must the parents who weren't inside felt, knowing that their child was being held, and not knowing what was going to happen. I know that if my child would be taken hostage, I'd rather be in there with him than outside waiting, despite the danger. The families were angry at the Russian government for first under counting the hostages (they government originally said only 100 to 300), and then for not finding a peaceful way out. But though initial reports are sketchy, a number of children were killed, and it appears many of the hostage takers managed to escape (how could that happen? I guess it was chaotic). The reporter on the scene this morning described children being carried by him whose legs or arms were missing, blood everywhere, and he predicted the death count would be much higher than initial estimates.
Was storming the school the best way to go? There is a lot of distrust for the Russian government due to their mishandling of a hostage situation in Moscow last year. There they gassed building to knock out the hostage takers, but did not act in time to save the lives of most hostages. They also didn't inform doctors of the secret nerve gas they used, meaning doctors didn't know how to revive or treat the survivors. One woman told how she had held her small son throughout the ordeal, promising him she'd stay with him and they'd be OK. He died from the gas. She said she had felt that she had let him down, and she went to a bridge to commit suicide. She threw herself in the icy water, but managed to live. She then realized that her son wanted her to go on. So given what happened in that earlier hostage case (at a Moscow theater), there was distrust.
But in this case the hostage takers made no real specific demands, and there were explosions heard, and fears that people were being killed. I have no idea what the best course of action could have been. But, of course, the thing that has to get us thinking is what about the condition of the children who survive? Besides massive physical handicaps, the mental impact of this kind of experience is hard for us to imagine. And why do groups think something like this is a legitimate means of political action? It boggles the mind and saddens the heart to think about it. I've had to wipe a few tears from my eyes as I've been writing this, imagining the scenes, and how the people involved must feel. Children and Political Violence. In the headlines today, though obviously in many parts of the world it's a daily thing, lacking such headlines.
September 7, 2004: Over the weekend the number of dead in the Russian incident rose to over 350, with some insiders suggesting that the final count could reach 600. This weekend I was watching Russian TV (only understanding bits and pieces, but my wife could translate) through the satellite dish, and saw scenes from during and after the seige and attack. It now looks like the terrorists plotted for months to pull this off, and the scenes were intense. A lot of what we study with children and political violence deals with the indirect impact of war on children. Zlata's diary, for instance, is an example of a child who suffers because of a fight going on around her. In this case, children were the target of the violence. The goal was to hit a school, to try to arose so much anger that the Russians would respond with anti-Islamic attitudes and force. The idea, apparently, was to so shock the Russians that it would start a "war" between the Islamic and non-Islamic parts of Russia.
That strikes me as showing two aspects of violence. One, which I've mentioned and we'll probably come back to a lot, is how people easily fall into the trap of abstracting and compartmentalizing their activities in order to rationalize that which is wrong. Humans have the capacity to rationalize anything they do; we do that by disguising our actions as something that they are not. Rather than killing innocent children, the terrorists saw themselves as engaged in an attempt to free the Islamic parts of Russia from Russian rule by inciting a holy war. The act became in their minds something other than its reality; it became to them something honorable and necessary. War is hell, after all. They then "compartmentalized" the event as out of the context of their lives and normal moral beliefs. Sure, killing children is wrong, they might say, but this was something specific, part of that grand battle. Everything gets defined away until they are able to do what most of us can't imagine any human doing. And, from the holocaust to genocides throughout history, that's been common. We have that in our history too -- the conquest of North America and the destruction of the indigenous tribes that lived here. It was Teddy Roosevelt after all, whose face is on Mt. Rushmore, who said that it would be no shame if the red race would be destroyed to make way for the great white race.
The second aspect is the desire to take politics from the realm of reason to that of emotion. Reason gives a chance for compromise, for reading an understanding on mutual self-interest. Reason causes people to question whether or not it is worth sacrificing ones' life (or ones' moral beliefs) for a cause. Emotion can blot out thought, creating rage, anger, hate, and the root of all of these: fear. These terrorists fear loss of their religious identity in a land defined by secular rules, and fear that their fellow Muslims aren't devout enough to resist modernization. They hope to cause such fear of their acts that the hate they feel will be mirrored by the other side. They hope that Russians, out of fear of what might come next, start to hate Islam and let anger be their guide. That would cause a "culture war" that might (hope the terrorists) drive moderate Muslims, who currently are happy to live within Russia and work with people of other beliefs, to their side. Their only chance to avoid being pushed aside is to get others to have the same level of fear and hate that they do.
That creates a lesson: no matter how horrid the acts, no matter how vicious the perpetrators, we play into their hands if we respond with hate, anger, and a desire to lash out a large group (in this case Muslims). The Bosnian civil war described in Zlata's Diary is an example of what happens when emotion and hate engulf all sides, and madness takes hold. It makes no sense, it's not rational, it hurts everyone...not driven by reason, but by fear. Still, emotion isn't all bad. The emotion I feel that drives me to tears when I watch a mother suddenly see her young child on the lawn of dead bodies in front of the school, and who falls to her knees in sudden grief is not fear, but empathy. Empathy creates an ability to understand how others are affected by what happens, and if we let ourselves feel it, it's much more difficult to let abstraction lead to rationalizing evil acts. But empathy also requires a willingness to understand the other, and relate to what's happening. It requires reason and imagination -- you have to try to figure out what the other is going through, and imagine how it would feel. Reason and empathy vs. fear and abstraction -- that seems to be the choice facing a lot of people on this planet right now.
September 10, 2004: As the Russian school tragedy recedes from the headlines, the Russian government, like the American government three years ago, reacts with a vow to do whatever necessary to defeat terrorism, including pre-emptive strikes. Don Henley has a line in one of his songs (he was drummer and one of the songwriters for the Eagles, a band popular in the seventies and early eighties) "evil is still evil, in anybody's name." I have to wonder if, as understandable as the reaction might be, the terrorists are goading the Russians, or us, to stoop closer to their level. What does it mean that more innocent civilians, including children, have died in Afghanistan than were killed in the 9-11 attacks on the US? What does it mean when we read that there are from 10,000 to 30,000 dead in Iraq, mostly civlians, and including many children? Do we wonder why the average Iraqi is anti-American, when they associate the death and destruction they experience with the US military strikes? Have we given the terrorists a victory by stoking anti-Americanism in the region, helping terrorists recruit, and engulfing our whole country and its strength in Mideast conflicts that may or may not have anything to do with keeping the US free and secure?
It is easy to be horrified, saddened, depressed or enraged by acts of violence such as 9-11 in the US, and now 3-9 in Russia (they give the date before the month). But how should we react? In my last entry I noted that anger and prejudice against a group, such as Muslims, is a reaction that is not only irrational, but feeds into what the terrorists want, they want two sides to polarize. Even Presidents Bush and Putin, in their respective countries, argue passionately against prejudice against citizens who are Muslim, noting that terrorism in the name of Islamic extremism violates fundamental Muslim principles. But shouldn't we also question whether or not having violence and "war" as the primary form of response is the best path? Isn't that what terrorists want us to? It certainly doesn't seem to be working, and has, I believe, created a greater danger than existed before, as anti-Americanism is more intense than before. Even traditional allies to the US have been put off by America's response, and what they believe is arrogance. That raises the question of what we should do otherwise -- hitting back, going to war, etc., is an answer that seems satisfying. We can do it right away, it has action, and one can imagine a victory. But sometimes the easy answer isn't the right answer. And in this case, it could be pulling us into a cycle of violence that may get far worse before it concludes.
September 14, 2004: Recent events in Iraq suggest that there is a real problem facing American foreign policy makers. Iraqi insurgents, gaining considerable support from the population, have taken over large sections of the country, and have grown more bold in their attacks. Recent car bombs have killed over a hundred in less than a week, and today an oil pipeline was hit that caused the entire country to lose electricity. Now about 30% has been restored, but clearly, Iraq remains instable. Kidnappings have caused humanitarian and aid groups to leave, and reconstruction efforts have slowed dramatically due to security concerns and a shifting of money from rebuilding to "security." Here is the dilemma faced by the American military: the only way to defeat the militants is to crack down hard, with a massive military operation to regain control and establish security in the major cities now essentially under insurgent control. But doing that would mean a lot of dead Iraqis, including large number of Iraqi civilians (including, of course, children). Beyond the ethical concerns inherent in that course of action, the practical impact of such crack downs has so far been to increase support for the insurgents, and turn Iraqis against America, and the interim Iraqi government. There is no real solution to this, I don't think the United States can succeed in Iraq.
But do Americans care? Is this issue one where people really understand what's happening, or are people comfortable thinking that the US is just "fighting terrorists" and that Iraq will soon stabilize? President Bush conflates 9-11 with Iraq constantly, causing many people to think that the two are linked. Except for the fact that the terrorists who support Bin Laden are probably gleeful that so much American power is being put in Iraq, taking them away from the fight against al qaeda (note: Afghanistan is not stable either -- they have large sections controlled by war lords or the Taliban), and providing them a recruitment aid, this really is a completely different issue.
What's more important, the ethics or the pragmatics? In international relations, is "war" necessary? That's a question that really creates a quandary Look at Bosnia, look at Hitler's Germany...how could one argue that war wasn't necessary there? And if you're attacked, do you even have a choice? At times I want to just throw up my hands and quote a line from one of my favorite songs: "I haven't got the heart to act my part out in their play." This world was screwed up by others, and why should I have to support wars made "necessary" by bad choices on all sides. But the next line of that song is "But in the end you got no choice, it's the only game in town..." And that's true too -- I'm on this planet, in this world, and to do nothing, or to lose myself in television shows and the like would be to ignore the chance I have to make a difference.
But what is the right thing to do? If war is necessary, how much "collateral damage" is acceptable, including physical, mental and emotional injury to children? I have thoughts on this -- studying International Relations for twenty years pretty much makes that an issue impossible to ignore -- but I won't go into them yet. Today's entry is already long, and I want you all (if anyone is reading this) to think about what you believe.
September 20, 2004: It's disheartening to see how those in power abuse emotional events to rationalize either a tighter grip on power, or actions that would otherwise not get support. First stop: Russia. President Putin is using the horror from earlier this month to justify consolidation of power, creating a real question as to whether Russia remains a true democracy (should his reforms pass, which they are almost sure to do). He says Russia will also engage in pre-emptive action against "terrorists" that could threaten Russia, with hints of offensive Russian activities in the region in and around Chechnya, not necessarily limited to Russian territory. With a public angry and scared, people are often willing to give up freedom for security, to overlook the terror done by their own country by comparing it to terror done by others. You see that here with the obscene attempt to minimize the abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib in Iraq by saying it isn't as bad as the beheading the terrorists do.
Another apparent abuse of power in the US is the way "homeland security" is used to give the government immense power, even denying basic constitutional rights to citizens. I've heard of the 'no fly' lists and the like, but the issue apparently struck UMF in full force today, according to an e-mail sent to the staff list. In that e-mail, it was reported that Elizabeth Cooke's new book, where she tells the story from a child's point of view of her adoption of a girl from China, has been seized by customs. Apparently the distributor has been 'blacklisted,' and she will herself have to pay a sizable sum of money due to all this. We all get outraged when something like this happens, so obviously unnecessary and unfair, to someone we know. But these kinds of things have been happening a lot in the last couple years, all in the name of 'fighting terrorism.' Yet Time magazine reports that the borders are more porous than ever, thanks in part to the need by big business for cheap illegal labor, and one wonders if all these actions in the name of Homeland Security aren't often abuses of power with no real impact on security. Yet people accept all this, like they accept the war in Iraq, because of fear of terrorism.
I like quoting lines from songs, this will be the third time this month: "A blinding hatred caused by fear, is showing in their eyes; they want their truth all black and white, but a rainbow never tells no lies to a stranger in a strange land..." That's a line from a Triumph song from 1981, and if you forgive the poor grammar, it seems apt to the current situation. Hatred is caused by fear. People want their "truth" all black and white, clear and precise, enemies defined, a course of action laid out. While on the subject of quoting song lyrics, here is one from the band Rush: "Quick to judge, quick to anger, slow to understand; ignorance and prejudice and fear walk hand in hand."
We've got a land of fear these days. I don't think it's just terrorism, I think in general people are afraid of everything from failure to disease to not having enough for retirement. People don't enjoy the present because they are afraid of what will come next. That's overly generalized I know, but it's my blog and I'll over generalize if I want to! Taking it back to the fear of terrorism, we see the Speaker of the House saying that al qaeda wants Kerry to win because he won't be as 'tough' as Bush. Cheney says (though he later 'redefined' his statement) that a Kerry victory will make an al qaeda attack more likely. Fear makes for good politics in the short term (remember Milosevic and the fear he instilled in the Serbs that they were under threat). You can win elections, get policies through, inspire hatred of opponents, rationalize acts that might otherwise be seen as wrong. But fear is the most destructive force out there, it can blur the lines between right and wrong, lead to bad choices that can't be undone, and undermine even a country built on values as powerful and honorable as those upon which America was founded. Just as fear can be the undoing of an individual, it can threaten a society. We see it in our politicians; we see it in acts like the confiscation of a book that is no threat to anyone. Fear yields a desire to flee complexity to the safety of "truths all black and white," where understanding of others or complex situations is seen as weakness.
Yet I remain optimistic at base, for one reason. I don't see this level of fear where I work: I think students and young people are honesty curious and trying to understand. As long as apathy doesn't weaken the power of youth, I think its possible we could have a revolution in how we think about politics in this country in the coming years. Time will tell.
September 24, 2004: And now for something completely different. In this blog I've been focused on policy and world events. But now I want to shift a bit to the issue discussed in class on Wednesday in the "Children and War" course, the idea of meaning. Hedges' book War is a Force that Gives us Meaning noted that for many people war (either direct involvement, or following it from the home front) is such a powerful force because suddenly life has a clear, precise meaning. No more ambiguity, no more nuance and uncertainty, a clear battle against an evil opponent, a clear purpose. That fills a void that many people have. People go through life from one task to another, often filling their days with unimportant activity in order to hide the lack of meaning (if you stay busy, you don't notice!). Others confront it and are distressed by the apparent lack of clear purpose, turning to drugs, alcohol, gambling, or even suicide as a response. Most find enough meaning to avoid those extremes -- meaning in family, job, religion, or something that at least creates a sense of relevance to life. But even for those, the power of war to give a clear and emotional sense of absolute purpose is hard to overcome.
So what does give life meaning? Since this is my blog, I'm going to be a bit self-indulgent here. From the time I was small, I've been personally obsessed with that age old question "why are we here?" I remember prayers as a little boy "God, let me know what is right, why the world exists, what I'm supposed to do, and I'll do it." For awhile I was very religious, as the idea of a God and an ethic based on love for fellow humans seemed powerful. Yet my mind soon questioned that -- why this religion, and not that one? How can one know which is right? I then explored religions, comparing them (noting that almost all have some core common values -- love is the most powerful force, and the material world is not as important as the spiritual world), and then delving into philosophy. I never was satisfied with a pre-packaged answer, I needed to convince myself. I would read spiritual books, learn about astrology and the tarot, then shift and focus on pure science and reason as the answer. Here's something personal -- I have always wrote poems (bad poetry, I admit -- more like imagined lyrics for rock songs) as a release, and here are a few that I wrote back when I was in college or shortly thereafter, in my teens and early twenties -- closer to the age of most of you students who may read this.
That is a quest that never ends. My beliefs now are different than they were ten years ago. They will be different in ten years. I don't think I am likely (though anything is possible) to fall victim to the kind of excesses that Hedges describes because being self-critical and self-analytical about meaning in life forces one to be honest. War is, as Hedges notes, like a drug. It creates an illusion of meaning. But if you are practiced in reflecting about meaning, that illusion is easy to shatter. I think that the more I've reflected on this issue, the easier life has become, the easier it is to take things going wrong, or people being insensitive. At some level, the quest for meaning creates a sense of confidence and perspective that can't be achieved without spending time contemplated what matters in life. This is nothing new, of course. Plato via Socrates said that "the unexamined life is not worth living," and while that may be harsh, I can't imagine living life without trying to understand it's purpose and my role.
I won't bore readers further by going through all my beliefs, many of which I'm sure are wrong, but they are where I'm at now. I'll leave it with a question just to contemplate on your own: what gives your life meaning? Why? Do you reflect on this question, or does it seem self-obvious (perhaps my obsession with the issue is because I'm not seeing what others can see so clearly)? How important is meaning? I hadn't planned to do such a "philosophical" entry, but blogs are often stream of consciousness reflections, and this is where my mind is at today. Now, to enjoy the weekend!
September 29, 2004: The news from Iraq keeps getting more disturbing. CIA reports now suggest that the situation is far worse than publicly admitted, and that a strong insurgency was seen as likely by the CIA even before the war. This was ignored by the administration (and recent intelligence reports saying that Iraq had a bleak future were dismissed as 'guesses'), even though other CIA reports about WMD and Saddam's intentions were presented as ultimate proof war was necessary.
What happened is this. One group of foreign policy elite, known as 'neo-conservative' have had for years the argument that American power is immense at this point in history, and we should not be afraid to use that power to shape the world in a way that corresponds to our interests and ideals. These "neo-cons" are in many cases former Kennedy liberals from the sixties, who grew disenchanted with the Democratic retreat from the aggressive policies JFK promoted (something a lot of people seem to forget about JFK, who after all paved the way for the Vietnam debacle with similar thinking). Other elites -- Realists and Liberals (in the ideological sense of the world, not US political jargon) argued against that, realists saying that great powers stumble into disaster when they over estimate their ability to use power to shape political results, and liberals arguing that cooperation and action through international organizations was the best way to create a stable and effective future. After 9-11, with the country afraid and the Bush Administration unsure how to respond, the neo-conservatives (represented in the Administration by people like Paul Wolfowitz) had the upper hand. They argued that the only way to stop Islamic fundamentalism was to use American power to reshape the Mideast, and Iraq was key. A quick victory in Iraq, followed by the instillation of a pro-American democracy would pressure the whole region to change. We simply need to be bold, unafraid to use our power to alter the world.
It hasn't worked, of course. Iraq is bustling with anti-American activities, intelligence reports on WMD have been proven wrong, and we're looking at a situation that may end up worse for the US than Vietnam did. But it's not being acknowledged. The President simply spins, saying that things are improving and the world is better without Saddam. Things aren't improving, and it's not clear that Saddam's regime was less threatening to the world than the chaos there now. Kerry seems to finally be speaking out forcefully on this, but for a long time he seemed to be waiting to see how the news would go in Iraq before making it an issue. We're in the midst of a real foreign policy disaster, driven by the belief American power could reshape a dangerous region of the world, an "arrogance of power," as Fulbright called it. Though I have to admit I find Kerry's discussion of Vietnam sometimes amusing. He refers to it as Nixon's war, and seems to ignore that Nixon actually disengaged the US (albeit more slowly than he should have) after LBJ (President Johnson) and JFK flung us into the debacle. In many ways, Kerry, if elected, would be required to be the modern Nixon (with Bush the modern LBJ), finding a face saving way out of a no-win situation.
One other thing, relating a bit to the last blog, and to a "disagreement" Mellisa and I had in class. I said there was no ethical "answer key" to the question of what is right and wrong. In the modern era, there is no way to objectively prove that something is morally right, we have to make that call. Mellisa said there was a right and wrong, and it's often clear. I think we're both right. I think, personally, that the "answer key" is found in the love that we feel for all humans when we understand that we are in a spiritual sense, all part of each other. From that naturally flows, from the “heart,” a sense of right and wrong in how to act and treat others. However, I can’t prove that through the use of modern reason – these are questions reason can’t answer. But I know, as much as I can know anything, that the feeling I have about what is right and wrong is not just emotion, but understanding. But I can’t know that in a scientific or philosophical sense, only a spiritual sense.
October 15, 2004: Well, between a lot of mid-term grading, having to find a new day care center for my son, and in general business, I finally will make time to continue my "blog." It’s an election year, so I’ll start with comments on the election. Last week CNN’s Aaron Brown noted that President Bush and Senator Kerry agree that the war on terror cannot be won completely, because terrorism will always be around. Bush had a quote that said openly, “I don’t think you can win it (the war on terror),” while Kerry said that he wanted to get to a point where terrorism is just a “nuisance,” rather than defining the national context. But, though they agree, each has put out commercials using the quotes to attack the other one. In this campaign, obviously, image has replaced substance. My own view is that the Bush campaign is really, really scared that they might lose, and they are pulling out all the stops. The Kerry campaign is really scared that such tactics might do to him what they did to Michael Dukakis in 1988, and they are ready to do whatever necessary to counter those tactics. In an election likely to be as close as the one in 2000, it’s nasty, personal, and likely to get worse in the final weeks. The Sinclair network of TV stations, 62 strong, has been ordered by its conservative owner to show, without commercial interruptions, an anti-Kerry film next week. That seems to be a rather blatant abuse of the air waves, but we do have free political speech in this country (though the air waves can be regulated, the right to freedom of speech is not absolute for television that uses the airwaves). Yes, we’re in for a nasty run.
At this point, checking the polls and taking into account the debates, my prediction would be that Kerry is likely to win. Momentum seems to be going his way, though the polls still show a neck and neck race. I think the trump card Kerry holds might be the youth vote, especially in urban areas. This year has seen a massive increase in voter registration, and high turn out might be a wild card in Kerry’s favor, especially in cities like Cleveland, New Orleans, Detroit, and Philadelphia, where large states show a neck and neck race. Kerry brought up today the possibility that Bush's plans might lead to a draft. I find that unlikely, but it's a thought that could help motivate young people to vote. But if he wins, what will he do?
One interesting question also has emerged in another of my classes: what is the difference between terrorism and war? If more civilians died in Afghanistan during the war than died in the terrorist attacks on 9-11, is it really enough to talk about civilian targets as the cause? A story was told by one student of an incident his brother witnessed in Afghanistan, where a 7 year child was killed by Americans for violating the curfew. The child was taken to the local Mosque and presented as a warning that if you violate curfew, this could happen. Is that really a soldier engaged in a war, or is that terrorism? Where or how is the line drawn? I'll blog more on that topic next week.
October 18, 2004: What do professors think when they read what they assign for their classes? Most of the time, it's not much -- just skimming something already read many times, trying to remember the important points the author makes, or things to emphasize. Sometimes it's a quick read to see what students might not comprehend and what needs to be explained in class, or what the author left out, that needs to be expanded upon.
In the "Children and War" course, with material often distant from things I usually assign for political science classes, my reaction is often much different. Sometimes, as I read about the experiences of children in various places, I imagine my 18 and a half month old boy, and what it would be like if he were to suffer. It's gut wrenching. I will often feel the tears well up in my eyes as I read the examples, or I'll have to put the book down, closing my office door and letting myself feel the emotion, and feel the tears run down my cheek. I also think about that as I play with my little boy. We have a little ritual in the morning. I hear him through the baby monitor start to stir, so I get upstairs, usually at 6:15 or so, and walk into the room. I sing to him an old Cat Stevens song as I walk in: "Morning has broken, like the first morning, black bird has spoken, like the first bird..." He reaches down and gets a stuffed bird he has in the crib when he hears the word bird (or now, he anticipates it), and holds it up, smiles, and says "Daddy!" He is almost always happy, inquisitive, and despite frustration when he can't do something that can sometimes release a tantrum, good natured. He has never had to suffer more than the bumps and bruises of any kid who plays hard but lacks judgment. So when I read of what happens, I can't help but imagine him in a situation like that, puzzled, and then crying...
Should I? Should I push those emotions down, try to look at things as a dispassionate social scientist, accepting that there is a lot of ugliness in the world, and that it is pointless to react. Should I push away that tendency to imagine myself or son in those circumstances, and feel the emotion that it would unleash? Does that hamper my "objectivity" in analyzing an issue? Or does refusing to feel equate with a refusal to truly understand the reality of what happens? I've always come to the conclusion that feeling expands the understanding rather than undermining it. I found this quote on page xvii in the forward of the book we're using No Place to Be a Child, from Liv Ullmann, to be powerful and I believe true:
"They are not numbers. They are not faceless. In fact, they are you and me, and eventually we will all be counted together. Because we live in deeds and not in years. We live in our thoughts, we live in our feelings -- not in figures and possessions. Time is counted by our heartbeats. And he or she lives the most who feels the noblest and acts the best."
In this era of hypernationalism, militarism, fear, anger, and cynical apathy, the most important thing is let oneself feel what it means to be human. Neither the heart nor the mind alone can truly understand. Knowledge without feeling, like emotion without thinking, is incomplete. This course reminds me of that, and helps me explore what it all means.
October 28, 2004: Last night we had a fantastic talk on campus from Jerry Genesio, a founder of Veterans for Peace, and a man who has helped organize and participate in actions to help civilians and especially Children in Nicaragua, Guatemala, and the Balkans (especially Bosnia). What was heartening about his talk was that while in the "children and war" class we have so many depressing images of children struggling through physical and mental trauma, helpless victims of some kind of political conflict, his talk was a reminder that people can help. What was most impressive was not just his personal efforts, but how he got support from so many people. When he told of a child being flown in from Bosnia to the hospital in Portland, to be greeted by all three shifts on Christmas Eve, or when he described the ease in getting volunteers willing to go into dangerous places to help, it was a reminder that most people are good and want to do good. That is, after all, one of things we learn that children want to do when they hear about war -- they want to help. Adults are really the same, I think. We just don't know how to help, or political leaders (in his case it was sometimes the UN, the US, or local governments) put up obstacles. But a will is there to try to help those in need, and make the world a better place, and I suspect that those who want to do good vastly out number those who do not care about the impact of the violence they support or engage in. That suggests to me that there is hope for the future, that those of good will and good hearts will ultimately triumph. This semester I've thrown myself into this issue and have felt emotional weight, thinking not only of the images and stories we deal with in this class, but also imagining what it would be like if it were my nearly 19 month old son. I needed the talk last night, both to remind me that I can do more, and to help assure me that one shouldn't just concentrate on the bad, but recognize all the good will that is out there. I needed that.
Otherwise, the United States political situation is becoming surreal. With allegations of voter fraud, voter intimidation, unmailed absentee ballots, etc., etc., we're starting to look like a dysfunctional democracy. The problem is that the issues are emotional and intense, and there is a real divide in how people perceive the country and its role in the world. Many people are caught up in the simple emotion of nationalism -- a desire to identify with their country and its rhetoric, and believe they are part of something noble, without questioning too carefully what is being told to them. Others are caught up in a simple emotion of dissent -- anger about the last election, and a desire to fight for change, without being willing to listen to what the other said believes. Most in the middle are finding themselves forced to choose which side of the fence to stand. And it's hard to find a middle ground in this case. I'm convinced that the policies of the Bush administration are very dangerous, so I'm clearly on the side associated with Kerry. But I was a College Republican back when I was the age of most students here, and I certainly understand the ideals behind most conservative thought. And though I moved to a different position, I think as a country we have to, no matter how the election turns out, find a way to reach out and listen to each other. I hear talk radio demonizing "liberals" (and caricaturing them into something that probably would only describe 1% of the population), and hyping emotion, and I start to think that the very nature of our political discourse is degenerating into sound bits and emotional tugs, not debate and discussion. Given the challenges we face, that is discouraging. Perhaps after this emotional election coming in a few days, assuming there aren't major litigations and angry contestation lasting for over a month like last time, the country will take a breath, the winner will reach out to the losers, and we can regain our footing as a nation where people not only accept, but welcome and enjoy political diversity. Otherwise, we may be heading into an era that could rivel the sixties in terms of public discord. We live in interesting times.