Blog entries are in chronological order

March 14, 2005:  OK, it's been two weeks since I wrote...I'm not keeping up as well as I'd hoped.  This has been a busy time though.  I hope there are still some people reading, but even if this is just an exercise in self-indulgence, at least I'm documenting for myself my thoughts!

In Iraq there is still no government, basically because the US stacked the deck against one easily being named.  The problem is that although there is majority support for a Prime Minister and a President, there needs to be a 2/3 majority to actually form a government, and the Kurds are demanding control of Kirkuk before they'll agree.  The system was set up in a rather obscene way, essentially giving the minority Kurds veto power over the ability of a government to take shape!  No system I know has that kind of bizarre structure, it makes no sense from a Comparative Politics standpoint.  All I can figure is that the US wanted to make it difficult for a government to form in order to increase the chances we can manipulate and shape negotiations on its final outcome.   While that kind of manipulations weakens the claim that the elections gave power to the Iraqi people, it also may be counter productive to the US, as it raises anger in Iraq that no government has taken shape, and gives the insurgents a period of political uncertainty in which to operate.   The Kurds (or Sunnis) can already block any agreed constitution, there is no point for a 2/3 majority necessary to form a government.

In Syria a huge pro-Hezbollah demonstration brought 500,000 people out last week, as the Bush administration tries to point to Lebanon as a sign that the Mideast is, indeed, democratizing.  It's a weak claim.  The reason for the claim is Syria's likely withdrawal from Lebanon due to pressure from around the world and within Lebanon.  The US claimed that a legitimate election could not take place while foreign troops were in Lebanon (at least these foreign troops didn't create a 2/3 to govern rule!)  The US claim is rather bizarre, given that Iraq had a far greater foreign presence in its elections.  But Hezbollah itself is a major political power, and Lebanon's elections with or without Syria's presence may bring neither stability nor a government friendly to American interests.   Lebanon's situation is because of what's going on in Lebanon, not in the least due to American policy in Iraq.  Meanwhile, in Iraq an Italian journalist and her car were shot at as she was being taken to the airport after being released from kidnappers.  An Italian secret service agent was killed, and she was wounded.  She writes form the leftist Il Manifesto (formerly the PCI paper), and is critical of the war, and even suggested she was targeted.  The US claims the car was speeding through a checkpoint (a claim made about every civilian death at those check points), but the Italian government and both survivors are adamant that that is NOT the case.  Other info suggests that US checkpoints are neither clearly visible nor well understood by the public, meaning that the numerous "accident" shootings are due to lack of American protection of non-combatants.  In other words, innocents are being killed because the US isn't competently handling checkpoints.

Still, the big news according to the American media is whether Michael Jackson is late to his trial, or Congressional inquiries into steroid use in baseball.  Most people just don't care about what's going on in Iraq, except for assuming we have to stay there to fix things (I'm not sure our continued presence doesn't just deepen the problems) and to hope that American soldiers return safely.  I think we have to also reflect on whether or not the occupation and how it is being done really reflects our national values and ideals. 

March 25, 2005:  A lot in the news lately, but between having a cold and being far too busy, I'm still keeping my horrid pace at writing on this only sporadically.   In the new, silliness.  In Florida a woman who is living in a persistent vegetative state finally will be able to die, it appears, as the courts ruled in favor of her husband to remove a feeding tube that was keeping her alive.   I'm going to quote an e-mail I sent to a friend to express my view on this:
    There is a good column on www.juancole.com comparing the way the far right in America uses the Schiavo case to make a private matter one of public moral judgment to the way Islamic extremists do the same thing.   It’s idiotic.  So far, the courts haven’t caved in this instance (though it shouldn’t have gone this far), we’ll see what happens.  The same people who think nothing of the mass killing of innocents and children with their lives before them in order to expand American power want to viciously fight to keep a body alive that has no awareness and no chance of recovery.  Perverse.  It’s so obscenely absurd that it has an almost comic quality to it.  It symbolizes what’s wrong with American political discourse and the danger of a kind of creeping neo-fascism.

While I'm quoting myself, here's a letter I sent to the Kennebec Journal (which has yet to appear, but I suspect will):

Dear Editor,

I’m saddened by the inability of Americans to truly comprehend what war is, and how much suffering we’ve caused. We don’t seem to realize that an act of aggression that kills tens of thousands of innocents in order to achieve a political end is of dubious moral worth. Does the fact Saddam killed mean it’s not so bad if we kill? When people talk about the human cost of the war and if it was worth it, it usually is to refer to American dead. But in terms of morality, there is no greater tragedy in war than the loss of life for non-combatants. The only positive thing I can see is that by stretching our military so thin just to try to control tiny, broken, Iraq, we’ve demonstrated the limited value of military power.

This is not just Bush or the Republicans, to be sure. In the Kosovo war we killed numerous innocents during nearly 80 days of bombing, and did little to help the Kosovar Albanians on the ground (indeed, the mass ethnic cleansing came after, not before, we started bombing), since we didn’t want to put our soldiers at risk. We lost no Americans, but I recall reports like that of a three year old killed in a bombing raid in Novi Sad, hundreds of miles from Kosovo deep in Serbia. We seem to see military action as abstract and clean, we have lost our ability to comprehend just what it means when human lives are shattered because of our choices. I believe ultimately we will suffer for this; our greatness is not based on our military strength, but our values. We sacrifice those values at our peril.

Gee, a blog entry on the cheap, me quoting myself!  But when I come back next week, I'll talk about two issues of importance to me: a) the great talk the Global Society sponsored from Tharjiath and Sami (from Sudan and Somalia respectively) about growing up in a war zone and then moving to America, and b) getting German TV from dishnet!  For now, I'll start the weekend.

March 28, 2005:  As mentioned last week, we had a great global affairs forum, attended by over 150 people, to hear two students, Sami Margan from Somalia, and Tharjiath Ruot from Sudan, talk about their experiences growing up in a war zone, and having to live in refugee camps before making it the US.  Given how blind most Americans are to the human cost of war -- we justify it in very abstract terms, and rationalize the destruction by referring to some grandiose "end," -- hearing real experiences hopefully helps people take into account what war really entails.

More disturbing is the fact that so few really know what's going on in the world.  It's not because people don't want to know, but unless you dig, it is so hard to get real information.  When we investigated Pol Pot's regime, the killing fields, the evil of forced collectivism in the name of some grand communist utopia, only a few students had heard of it.  When we discuss Sudan now, people know a bit about the Darfur region, but few had any clue of the war in the south, the use of slavery as a weapon, and the decades long violence, driven by ethnic disputes, the attempt in the 90's to Arabize and Islamize the country, and the massive suffering.  It is on the one hand heartening to know that at least my efforts do something in helping some people learn what is and has recently happened.  But clearly there is something wrong when citizens of the world's largest power don't know much about the world around them, simply taking what is spoon fed by the government or mainstream media.

Or take Stalin -- he killed 20 million people in his purges.  Hitler killed 11 million in his holocaust.  People know the latter as the most infamous man in history, the former is a vague name to most students (and adults).   Of course then there is Mao who, besides the cultural revolution created policies of forced industrialization that led to famines that killed 30 million.   Pol Pot's toll was less, but it was nearly a quarter of Cambodia.  And then you look at the little authoritarians, the constant wars in the African continent, the trade in sex trade, the use of child soldiers...yet we in America pay too little attention to these things. 

Yet one has to again remain optimistic that little acts can cause great changes, that the power of individuals to make a difference is greater than it appears, since the end results of acts taken are often not recognized or even traceable to the initial act(s).    Deep down I am convinced that when humans have clear knowledge, they usually make ethical choices.   Those who don't could be overwhelmed by those who do.  The biggest barrier is ignorance, both about the specifics of what is happening, but more importantly, about the true human cost. 

March 29, 2005:  As we enjoyed what is likely our final real snow yesterday, I of course found solace in realizing that, along with three other professors and 39 students, I will be in Italy in just over six weeks!  This should be an awesome course, even if two weeks is hardly enough time to do Venice, Florence, and Rome justice (with side trips to Pompeii and elsewhere).  One good book I've read that's helped me get in the mood for Italy was "Angels and Demons" by Dan Brown.  Nearly 600 pages, but it was a fast read, an excellent suspense story about a Vatican drama after the death of a pope, combined with details of various places and sites in Rome.  The same person who loaned me that book then loaned me one of Brown's other books, "The Da Vinci Code" which was a major best seller.  I think "Angels and Demons" is a better book, actually, but was amused to hear that a Catholic Cardinal was condemning "The Da Vinci Code"  as "lies" and urging Catholics to boycott it.  I believe Jon Stewart said it best when he read the Cardinal's charge and said, "Lies?  It's in the fiction section!  A whole section of the bookstore filled with lies!"   The book  isn't even hard on the church, compared to a lot of other literature out there.  Perhaps some of the historical truths that Brown acknowledges embarrasses the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic religion, and they'd prefer to see that silenced.  But it's pretty ridiculous -- it's like when O'Reilly tried to sue Al Franken awhile back.  When you're in a position where you can't accomplish anything against someone whose acts or writings bother you, you make yourself look silly by complaining.  Anyway, I'm looking forward to Italy!

Change of pace.  Want to know the key to enjoying life?  I was thinking about that the other day, wondering why so many people were so stressed out, angry or upset about their lives or their situation.  I used to think "attitude" was the key -- having a positive attitude makes a huge difference.  That is true; people with negative, angry or cynical attitudes tend not to enjoy or appreciate life as much.  But more fundamental, I think, is perspective.  Perspective is the ability to quickly and clearly recognize the relative importance or unimportance of an issue at hand.  Let's say I'm at my computer, and it crashes, causing me to lose an hour's worth of research or lecture writing.  That would irritate the hell out of me...but...my response would be to think: a) given all the horrors in the world, to lose an hour of computer work is a "problem" only for someone in luxury; b) getting upset doesn't do a thing to alter the current reality, best just to get back to work; c) my work will probably end up better the second time through anyway!  Even big problems -- losing a job, having your stock market portfolio's value crash, having a major health problem in the family -- can be best handled with perspective.  Recognizing all these things are part of human existence, nobody is immune from life's ups and downs, but we all get through them and move on.    People who learn how to use perspective reflectively and naturally in daily life find themselves less prone to stress, anxiety, anger, or resentments.  Note I said "less prone."  Everyone's human, everyone's perspective fails at times (and perspective will help a person accept when they err, and not kick themselves over it!), and a little anxiety and anger can give us some energy to continue.  Perspective does not mean becoming a stoic!  In fact, I'll at times let myself be really upset about something, while at the same time laughing at myself inside for getting upset.   Let the emotion out, but don't let it linger or eat away.  So...especially as the end of the semester nears and stress levels rise...remember, the key to avoiding all the stress, pressure and weight of the modern world is PERSPECTIVE!

March 30, 2005:  The mess in Iraq keeps getting worse, as the optimism that a successful election occurred gives way to the pessimism of growing corruption (Iraq has likely replaced Nigeria as the most corrupt state on the planet, with American businesses and likely American government officials either involved or tolerating it), lack of agreement on forming a government, a continuing and growing insurgency, the threat of new protests, and the possibility this could all lead to massive unrest.  Supposedly Condi Rice is now of the camp that favors a US withdrawal from Iraq.  It won't leave a successful pro-American democracy in place, it won't create a new strategic balance of power in the Mideast that favors the United States and pressures Syria and Iran, it won't be a vanguard for democracy.  It will be simply a retreat from a failed policy.

This is all in line with what I and many others were warning about back in late 2002, but it's not a cause for satisfaction for being right.  This has a direct impact on millions of people in the region, and instability and continued violence will only make things worse.  This is not a situation with a military solution, nor does the US really have the power to shape the outcome.  One lesson all should have learned by now is that no matter how militarily powerful the US is, our ability to shape political outcomes is extremely limited.  Leaving Iraq, even with the job "unfinished," even with the policy clearly a failure, is superior to remaining, and spurring on support for extremism by giving them a foreign enemy face to focus upon.  We have to recognize the limits of power, the need for multinationalism, and the reality that the result is not in our hands.  I just hope we haven't messed things up beyond repair.

Other topics.  For all you who are interested in German foreign policy, my book is now being offered at half the cost, so it's really a bargain...hey, I gotta advertise a little bit!   Click here for details.  Also, I'm finishing up a great lectures on CD series, "How to Listen to and Understand Great Music," a 48 part lecture series by Robert Greenberg.  It is excellent, I'm amazed both at how much I'm learning, and how much I didn't and still don't know.  It definitely inspires me to try to learn more about, and take time to develop a taste for western concert music.  What a world -- so many things to learn about!  We'll never have time to learn about everything, but that's good -- that means we'll never run out of new and interesting aspects of this world to investigate, no matter how long we live.  I also made a connection while listening to today's third to last lecture (on Debussy and the move from the romantic to the modern era) between art and the issue of perspective I discussed yesterday.  Not only is perspective important for handling life, but understanding perspectives is an ability that separates intellectually agile from intellectually shallow individuals.  Intellectually agile individuals can understand multiple perspectives, recognize how the world looks from each, and imagine new perspectives and ways of knowing, either through integration of the old, or imagination on what possibilities exist beyond current understandings.  Intellectually shallow individuals grasp on to a perspective or world view, and refuse to try to comprehend how other world views operate.  They either ignore them, or see them as something fearful or strange.  In a worst case scenario, they engage in holy war, thinking they have "the right" perspective, and other "wrong" views are evil, must be defeated, are immoral, dishonest, or whatever.  Part of the key to a successful life is to have perspective, and also to be skillful in understanding perspectives on all aspects of human existence.  Those who grab on to an "ideology" or single world view and find it a comfortable home from which to lash out at others or avoid thinking about how things could be different have really only built themselves a cage.

March 31, 2005:   Today's topic: the fallacy of the 'cult of materialism.'  In International Relations the class is nearing the end of the unit on the third world, comparing the startling success of the first world with the poverty, violence and corruption in so many parts of the third world (I know, I know, it's not considered politically correct to say 'third world,' but no label is politically unproblematic, so I'll just use what I want).   In the states of Europe are united and prosperous, despite being engaged in an orgy of violence just over a half century ago.  At that time they turned the social darwinist competition oriented Realpolitik ideals on themselves after conquering the globe, leading to a holocaust, the rise of anti-individualist ideologies (fascism and communsim), and tens of millions dead.  Now the EU, US and the industrialized West in general are enjoying the greatest period of sustained growth and prosperity in the history of the world.  If you are one of the 20% of the planet in this part of the world you are not only wealthier than most of the rest of the planet, but your life is more luxurious than that of even the highest members of nobility in past eras.  More variety of food, more convenience, more comfort, unbelievable entertainment.  Even the poorer members of our society (the US, EU, Japan, etc.) live in the lap of luxury, the material elite.

Yet we don't seem to be enjoying it.  The problems of depression, anxiety, stress, anger/rage, low self-esteem, eating disorders, etc., are prevalent throughout society.  Our material wealth should, if the materialist thinkers are right, have yielded a society of satisfied, comfortable, happy citizens.  Yet people just work to get more stuff, and find that, gee, their happiness cannot be satiated by "stuff."  Beyond a fleeting moment of "gee, this is cool," the new toy gets old quickly (having a two year old, I observe a microcosm of that quite often), and if there is a hole in the soul, it is one that does not get filled by material means.

In the third world, on the other hand, writers assure us that despite the poverty and problems, most people -- especially those away from intense famine and war -- get by rather well.  As long as they have enough to survive, a sense of community, a sense of culture and tradition, or at least a sense of meaning, they can be happy and enjoy life, even lacking material comforts.

Now, I'm oversimplifying, but I think its pretty obvious that the cult of materialism is based on a fallacy.  If material wealth was the reason to be, then the most content and well adjusted people would be folk like Michael Jackson and OJ Simpson.  If money was the solution to relationship problems, the rich and famous would have the most stable and enduring marriages.  If meaning came from stuff, then as a society we'd be blissful.  The fact is that meaning is by definition something beyond material objects.  We imbue a material object with meaning, we can find meaning in abstract non-material connections, be it based on family, friendship, religion, spirituality, or a sense of community.

You know, if we're on this planet, living in this period of extreme prosperity and comfort (and yes, we have to confront issues like whether or not our prosperity is enhanced via exploitation of the third world, but we'll leave that issue aside for now), we should have the capacity to enjoy that comfort for what it is, but not let it define us.  We can be in the world, partaking of the world, but recognize that we are not a product of the world.  Meaning can be expressed in words, music, art, and even actions.  It can have a spiritual component, an intellectual component, and an emotional component.  It can be personal, it can be connected to ones' sense of community.  The challenge of living well in a world where it's so easy to be hypnotized by all the distractions and demands of our modern technocracy requires reflection and perspective.  After all, it would be a damn shame for someone to have a life with all this prosperity and luxury all around them, and yet not be able to enjoy living.