Author: proximity1

   From “Wikileaks”, a video showing details of a U.S. military attack by “Apache” class helicopter gunships in which two Iraqi employees of Reuters are among those (all non-combatants) killed.

  See:   http://www.collateralmurder.com

     
  Video Shows American Killing of Photographer

      By ELISABETH BUMILLER  (April 5, 2010)

  “WASHINGTON — The Web site WikiLeaks.org released a graphic video on Monday showing an American helicopter shooting and killing a Reuters photographer and driver in a July 2007 attack in Baghdad.

    “A senior American military official confirmed that the video was authentic.”

     http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/06/world/middleeast/06baghdad.html?hp=&pagewanted=print

       ———        ———

  “The Reuters employees were Namir Noor-Eldeen, 22, a photographer, and Saeed Chmagh, 40, a driver.”

   — New York Times,    July 13, 2007

    2 Iraqi Journalists Killed as U.S. Forces Clash With Militias

     By ALISSA J. RUBIN  

     at link
     http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/13/world/middleeast/13iraq.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print

 Here, (IN PLAIN TEXT) following, is a comment from DaveW to me in another thread and, below it, the reply that, despite all my efforts, I cannot post there:

  DaveW wrote:

  <blockquote>

  Re: How to Get it Done (none / 0)
Maybe among all the verbiage, one of these times you’ll insert an explanation of how letting healthcare reform die at the hands of a corrupt system and a corrupt opposition makes anything better. Yeah, we’re in total agreement that the system is corrupt and unsustainable. A central core of that corruption is the de facto veto of Senate legislation by a 41% minority of the most corrupt. Another central core is the millstone tied around our necks by a Constitution that demands that a citizen of Wyoming have 70 times the Senate representation of a citizen of California. Another central core is allowing paid advertising in political campaigns. Another central core is the extreme power corporations to buy legislation and legislators with money that doesn’t belong to them.
We agree, I think, that these and many other aspects of our political fundamentals need radical reform. I wish they all could have been fixed before healthcare came up. Ain’t gonna happen, so I don’t know what it is that you’re ranting about. Say it outright: Do you want to sacrifice healthcare reform if passing it means using parliamentary maneuvering? Is that your point? If not, what do all your rants about corruption have to do with the issue at hand? All I get out of it is that you’d rather feel "pure" than be sullied by dirty fighting for some small measure of economic justice.

FDR’s response to progressive demands: "I agree. Now go out and make me do it."

by DaveW on Sun Oct 18th, 2009 at 01:37:01 PM EST

  </blockquote>
  And here is my reply:

    citing you:

  "We agree, I think, that these and many other aspects of our political fundamentals need radical reform. I wish they all could have been fixed before healthcare came up. Ain’t gonna happen, so I don’t know what it is that you’re ranting about. Say it outright: Do you want to sacrifice healthcare reform if passing it means using parliamentary maneuvering? Is that your point? If not, what do all your rants about corruption have to do with the issue at hand? All I get out of it is that you’d rather feel "pure" than be sullied by dirty fighting for some small measure of economic justice."

   Event though you _claim_ that you "wish they i.e. "these and many other aspects of our political fundamentals needing radical reform all could have been fixed before healthcare came up," your consistently stated views at this site belie such a claim as being, in fact, simply a hopelessly vain "wish".  In other words, you are anything _but_ serious about this "wish".

   How do I know this?  Simple.  Tell me, _when_ would you— indeed, when _have_ you <b>ever</b> — advocated that, <i>instead of taking the immediately politically expedient course,</i> as you continue to do here and now, those in positions of power place in priority <i> "these and many other aspects of our political fundamentals needing] radical reform" </i>?

   My guess is that the honest answer is: "Never."

   I’m betting you’ve _always_ advocated doing the immediately politically expedient thing at the expense of taking on what are larger, more deep-rooted, ills which are the foundation of poisoning corruption of the entire political system.  Then, as now, you’d have answered at any given moment in the past, when urged that reform of these fundamental ills be made a first-priority, the same things you’re telling me above:

   "<i>Ain’t gonna happen, so I don’t know what it is that you’re ranting about.</i>"

   which makes of your claimed "wish" just so much bogus and empty bullshit.

  citing you again:

      "Say it outright: Do you want to sacrifice healthcare reform if passing it means using parliamentary maneuvering? Is that your point? If not, what do all your rants about corruption have to do with the issue at hand? All I get out of it is that you’d rather feel "pure" than be sullied by dirty fighting for some small measure of economic justice.

  and here:

  "Do you want to sacrifice healthcare reform if passing it means using parliamentary maneuvering?"

   You leave "Parliamentary maneuvering" undefined and I’m not going to define that _for_ you.

 I don’t oppose honest use of the rules of the House and Senate or negotiating skilfully with one’s political opponents (including those within one’s own party!)–rather than, as it seems to me has been done most of the time so far, clumsily and foolishly and in a manner that is simply self-defeating and self-destructive.

  Instead, I’ll say this: believe it or not, there really are things which surpass in importance the passage of this health-care reform bill.  I fear, however, that within the Obama administration there is hardly anyone who sincerely acts like he or she really believes that.

    What could possibly be more important?  First, taking care to avoid doing <i>even more</i> deep and long-lasting destructive harm to the tattered vestiges of democratic institutions and, second, actual renewal and further advancement of real open and effective democratic institutions, of which there now remains almost nothing.

   The same interests which oppose health-care reform or, say, reform of high finance as Wall Street has been practicing it, also welcome every occasion to do greater deep and long-lasting harm to the crumbling foundations of "democracy"—a thing which exists now in name only.

   It’s true that, for those just-mentioned interests, defeating health-care reform (no bill at all is, of course, a full victory for them) or any effective reform of investment finance would be a great "plum".  But beyond these, what they would really prize is the further destruction of democratic institutions so that there remains simply nothing of any effective opposition.  That goal is really not far away.  And as long as you, Obama and others resign yourselves to the thoroughly corrupt system now in place rather than, <i>at a minimum,</i> placing on some sort of "second track" what amounts to a fully-coherent and carefully-planned program for extensive and long-term reversal of the destruction of our democratic institutions,</i> you, Obama and others like you actually materially aid these corrupting interests bring closer the day when nothing at all remains of genuine political give-and-take, when all is completely a put-up job, a sham where there isn’t any real opposition at all to an
all-powerful corporate-state.

  citing you:

     "…what do all your rants about corruption have to do with the issue at hand? All I get out of it is that you’d rather feel "pure" than be sullied by dirty fighting for some small measure of economic justice."

   They have this to do with it: I favor _real_ fights, not the sort of botched bullshit we’ve seen so far from Obama & Co., where, instead of taking the fight straight to the opponents, Obama immediately starts by stating _vaguely_ a number concessions, what he’s prepared to "settle for" and leaving even that as something that’s subject to being pushed farther and farther back from what he’d like in a result.  And, in that light, if what Obama has worked to achieve so far in health-care reform proves to have been mainly a failure, then, at a minimum, I want that failure to serve all of us as a valuable lesson from which mistakes we can profit in a fresh attempt—which should come <i>without delay</i>.  Because, you see (or maybe you don’t), the gross errors which the Clinton administration committed have _not_ been profitably used, nor from them advantages learned, taken and applied in ways that strike me in the current efforts.  (though this was the intention from various public pronouncements early on).

   This would necessarily involve Obama’s robbing his opponents of their still-all-important advantage of a general public which is simply politically clueless.  Obama cannot today even think about the strategic value of appeals to an alert, aware and effectively informed public opinion of any significant size which might give his policy initiatives invaluable support.  The reason he can’t  should be obvious: no such public exists; and, no matter what, he or others may claim to the contrary, the efforts so far to redress this lack have ranged from nil to pitifully inadequate.

   My rants about corruption have this to do with the current legislative battles in the House and Senate:

   we—you and I and the rest of the general public, both the best-informed  and the least-informed as well as Obama and all his administration have been saps and suckers for allowing a completely broken political system to persist so long in such corruption.  And as long as we continue as we have, we’ll remain saps and suckers—following your utterly bankrupt and hopeless assertions that effective reform at a fundamental level as I urge, simply "<i>Ain’t gonna happen</i>, in your own words.

   If that is really the case, then we really might as well (as indeed is probably the case anyway!) withdraw all our military forces from Iraq, Afghanistan, and, indeed, everywhere else in the world where U.S. forces are based.   Their presence is truly pointless and meaningless since we have for every practical purpose simply given up completely on any worthwhile idea of democracy.  And, therefore,  all the lives risked and lost, all the money spent, all the effort made, is truly and completely for nothing, utterly wasted.

   As amazing as it may seem, all indications that I can see are that Obama himself does not really grasp and understand this signal fact.  He acts as though he can at one and the same time treat the foundations of democratic institutions as things of secondary importance without also instilling in the public—who, whatever else they can or can’t grasp can certainly grasp this much—the firm belief that their entire political system is a sham and a fraud, that even its most senior officials don’t really believe in it or take it seriously.

   Whether he recognizes it or not, when he approaches his work as he has been doing, this is the message he sends so clearly in ways both subtle and not so subtle.  The world of corporate power, though quite as aware of these things as anyone else, doesn’t really much give a damn as long as their power and privileges go on advancing.  On that, too, I think we’re agreed.

   There’s is so much to cover though in presenting anything resembling a comprehensive answer to so broad a question as you put to me.  I can’t really hope to fully treat the myriad aspects or even mention them all in a post such as this.  All I can do is try, as I have here, to give you a preliminary and general idea of what I’m driving at.  

   And, so, there you have it such as it is.

    Assuming that what we think of as the “civilized world” in some form and sense survives another fifty years, one hundred years or more, what do you think young people today, who’ll comprise the progressive liberals of the coming generation, need in basic knowledge and understanding about the world of politics, economics and, more broadly, culture?

   The question is posed from a primarily English-language point of view but you may respond in terms which range beyond English-speaking culture if you wish.

   More particular questions, offered as prompts to further discussion of this main theme, follow below.
   What knowledge and understanding about their world, the political and economic parts of their society and, more generally, their culture and what it ought to contain, should young people today seek if they’re to help make up the next generation of liberals?

  As we’re here, I suppose, not only to argue and debate but, also, to learn from each other, I pose the question to solicit your thoughts.

  Some follow-up questions for greater detail:

  What particular books, if any, should they not fail to read and know well?

  What specific ideas are essential for their understanding of what (should, in your views) constitute liberal ideals and principles?

   How well does contemporary public education do in imparting these to high school and college students?

   If the schools aren’t doing a satisfactory job, where else can a youth look to learn what it means today, has meant in the past and should again mean to be a “liberal”?

   Are these useful questions to consider, in your opinion, or are they irrelevant to how today’s young people become tomorrow’s liberals?

  If current trends continue, what do imagine the world will look like in fifty years?  In one hundred years?  

   Will a liberal/conservative political dichotomy still be a valid conception?

    Weigh in, if you wish.

While on the surface, the following linked texts appear to concern matters related to the 2005 European Constitution Treaty referendum, in fact they concern much, much more.  They are really all about how democracy is supposed to work on behalf of ordinary people everywhere and about how clever are the techniques which sap and undermine genuine democratic government.

 The second text, especially, despite detailing how democratic institutions are being derailed, is also  an envigorating, inspiring document, not one which is resigned and hopeless.  In fact, the text linked below and written by a high-school economics and law professor from Marseilles, in France, is the most brilliant, most inspiring, and wisest political manifesto and call to political awakening that I have ever seen–anywhere, by anyone.  I believe that you shall not be able to look at politics or society the same way again after you have read this document.  Nor can you doubt the possibilities for change and the part in that which all of us can contribute.  I urge you to read.

 “All the problems of globalism are real.”

“But so far none of the alternative solutions are.”

 Suggested reading——-

 from : http://www.urfig.org/english.htm

 (excerpt)

 Presentation

“We are internationalists. “Mondialisation”, as it is said in French, as an objective phenomenon, is a source of joy in as much as it inspires a greater ethical demand on non-discrimination; in as much as it facilitates a rapprochement between peoples and the emergence of a world-wide solidarity; in as much as it raises, through the concrete challenges it provokes, the issue of subsidiarity and the capacity to set up, at a global level, transparent and controlled institutions. These are the many reasons why we refuse to be labelled as “anti-mondialistes” by certain journalists all too often inclined to draw caricatures.”

“What we do fight against is globalization, that is, the partisan vision which certain groups of people – within the business world, political parties and the media – try to put forth as an ineluctable phenomenon, as the limit of a humanity that has apparently reached the end of its history.  Globalization is the result of a choice and of a will.  We refute the relevance of this choice and oppose this will with radical resistance.  Because globalization, as a total project, is an initiative which promotes the process of enslavement, a process by which our world and its inhabitants are being subjected to the appetite of power and to the profit of the few.”

 [read the full text at the link above]

  AND

  “A bad Constitution which reveals a cancer in our democracy”

” Dear colleagues and friends,

” After six months of intense reflexion, an argumentation about the “constitutional treaty” is taking shape, stemming from it but extending beyond it, an argumentation that is neither rightist nor leftist, and that points out a historical danger to us all, far above politics. For this reason, this short argumentation should interest citizens of all sides.”

“Six months ago, in September 2004, I, like everyone, favored this text without having read it, on principle, just “to move forward”, even though I knew very well that Europe’s institutions were far from perfect. I did not want to be someone to slow    down. I really believe that the vast majority of Europeans, regardless of left/right political orientation, love this beautiful idea of a united Europe, more fraternal, stronger. It is a dream of peace, consensus, a very widespread dream bringing the majority together.”

 “I had not read the text and I really did not have the time: too much work… And then again, Europe is far away. And with all those politicians, I felt safe, should any dangerous tendency arise there were bound to be some of them to protect us… and I exempted myself from ” doing politics”, i.e. I exempted myself from taking care of my own business.”

 “Some voices had arisen already, protesting against the treaty, but they came from the extremes of the political spectrum and for this simple reason, I did not even start reading their arguments, still confident in the mainstream opinion without checking for myself the validity of the ideas at stake.”

 “And then suddenly, some protests emerged from people one could not suspect of being anti-European. I then read their appeals, leaving aside their political labels, and I found their arguments very strong. I started reading, a lot, entire books, from any side, Fabius, Strauss-Kahn, Giscard, Jennar, Fitoussi, Généreux, etc. And many more articles of those in favor of the treaty because I wanted to be sure not to be misled. And the more I read, the more anxious I got. Today, I can think of nothing else, I have lost sleep over it, I am afraid, simply, afraid of losing what is essential: protection against the arbitrary.”

“Today, I still read all speeches, those in favour as well as those against, I keep searching for the flaw in my reasoning and this text is an incitation to think and an attempt to make progress: if you can find a flaw, let us talk it over, please, with calm and honesty; it is very important. I can be mistaken, I sincerely seek to avoid it, let us reflect together, if you care to.”

” I feel that it is my duty, as a law teacher [1], to talk about it a little more than the others, to discuss it with my colleagues, but also with my students, with journalists too. I would be an accomplice if I remained silent. “

“I have thus found more than ten serious reasons to be opposed to this extremely dangerous text, and ten other reasons to reject an unpleasant text, not fraternal at all, actually. But the five strongest reasons, the most convincing ones, those that are shared across the political spectrum because they simply threaten the very reason for having a political thinking, those appeared to me later because it takes a lot of work to uncover them. It is these reasons, the five most significant ones, to which I would like to draw your attention, seeking your opinion so that we can speak about it together, given that the journalists deprive us of public debates. “

 *

 “The pile of messages I receive daily has a unity, a coherence, a strength: whatever the political side (and they really come from all sides), the general feeling is fundamentally pro-European and demanding as far as democracy and the respect of the people’s will are concerned. And these messages are generous and humane (except those horrible ones insulting me, but they are not so common). “

“I can see in them a common stand (or the seeds of a stand) for politicians to find a new inspiration, to unite differently, to modify their programmes and imagine a project for the aftermath of the No, a true Europe dedicated to people, not States.”

“We surely have two or three years in which to rally our European brothers and trigger this momentum everywhere, don’t we? And what if it was the people of Europe who started demanding firmly from political parties this democratic renewal, starting at grassroots level, communicating via the net to passing on the word without necessarily respecting party political divisions? You may say that I’m a dreamer… “

“I am becoming aware, indeed, that it is the States (or their political personnel?) who refuse Europe and reject the transfer of sovereignty.”

“Shouldn’t we start from scratch: ask the 25 people if they want to unite to create a eEuropean republic? Then start, only with those countries who wish to, a genuine constituent process, organised by the powers in office, but independent from them ?”

 “This is worth thinking about, isn’t it?”

 “I heard a sentence on the radio a few weeks ago, a sentence that hit the nail on the head, that keeps resonating in my brain and that is changing me. It says:

“We are not born citizens, we become so.”

   —————

 from his post-script to the above letter and text

(an excerpt):

 ” This text had an unexpected success and caused thousands of reactions. I receive hundreds of messages daily, almost always enthusiastic, sometimes critical, which enabled me to make progress. Some questions, some doubts also, keep turning in, and I would like, in a few words here, to answer them and anticipate on those to come.”

“I am a teacher of law, economics and computer science, in a BTS (French syllabus), in a college of Marseilles, I am 48 years old, have four children, I do not belong to any party, trade union or association. In my life, I have made more paraglider than politics in which I am virgin, an absolute beginner who “awoke” six months ago, and I will not dwell there long (free flight is a hard drug which will call me back quickly).”

“I am therefore nobody’s ‘submarine’ (I recently received this funny question).”

“I am just an average citizen :o)”

“I received proposals for publication on sites or in newspapers which I accepted without controlling whether the CIA or the KGB acts as writing pad. Many sites already published links to this text, sometimes without telling me about it, and rightly so.”

“I would like to pre-empt probable libels to come, based on hasty political labelling for an easy discredit. I am not a politician, I do not wish to become one, nor do I claim I am a lawyer to impose my point of view in an arrogant manner but to explain my purpose, besides I am not really a lawyer, rather, I have received a law training mostly, it is, anyway, not very significant for I would like the debate to remain focused on the bottomline without deriving on pointless and sometimes malevolent personnal quarrels or accusations of intentions of the kind that political commentators have learned to master.”

“Don’t blame me for all what this document turns into, for all foreseeable exploitation and manipulation. Everyone can imagine that it fled out of my control, and lives a life of its own… :o)”

“I am not trying to manipulate anybody: I may be mistaken in my analysis, I am merely awaiting that one proves this to me and a respectful debate is always seminal: “light springs out of discussion” my father would tell me when I was a child.”

” Please, trust the ideas and arguments, come into the debate as if your counterpart were in good faith, without dark hidden agenda, and do not let your analysis be polluted by parasitic considerations.”

“This significant debate belongs to the common run of people, such is the beauty of democracy, do not let it be confiscated by so-called experts. Read, reflect and speak without shame :o) “

 text by Étienne Chouard, Trets (Marseille).
Updated 2005, 17 june. (translated to English by Anne, Brooke, Malcolm, Nicolas, Odile, Peter, Pierre, Railane, Sébastien, Tanguy, Yves)

  more here…

  [  First posted at http://www.eurotrib.com/ > Euro Tribune  ]

Whither Europa ?

    Bless my soul!  I had not known before yesterday that, by arguing in defense of the belief that society has far more to gain by trying its best to ignore gender distinctions in all instances where value judgements are to be made about the just bestowal of rights or privileges than it does by interjecting gender as valid factor–deliberately  reserving a priori half of the praise , half of the blame, half of the prizes,  half of  the places, to one sex and the other half to the other sex, I was speaking in direct opposition to now-established European Union policy in some regards.

————————–

    So there is something in the law of the European Union which mandates gender parity in the    composition of certain representative assemblies?

    Until  yesterday, I was aware of only one such confounded man-made bureaucratic self-imposed straight-jacket of ideological faith–the famous economic pact of  « stability »  by which Euro member-states engage in willful make-believe about rates of inflation being subject to a lion-tamer’s whip and chair.   Now I see that I underestimated. « The European Union: manufacturers of fine social straight-jackets since… »

    It is dangerous to insist that nature or historical facts conform to our favorite prejudices,  dangerous to decide first what the facts of the case must mean and then select exclusively those which favor a  predetermined and preferred result.  That is exactly how the Bush White House came to its present circumstances in Iraq.  Bush’s advisors had looked at History and drawn from their most beloved and flattering episode of it–the heroic liberation of Europe by the valiant efforts of, according to now-settled American mythology, the U.S. led and inspired  Allied forces–the inescapable lesson that tyrants typically fall before the united forces of heavily-armed Good.   As a collary to this axiomatic truth, they appended by up-date that in this age of suitcase-bombs and mushroom-clouds, heavily-armed Good’s best defense is an eager and preëmptory offense.  Such a world-view resigns from the priority objective of avoiding war by use of law, reason and fairness in international politics and substitutes for it the assumption that we are condemned to oppose war  by choosing when and where to wage war.   This is the logic of the Vietnam War’s US soldier who explained to the television news reporter and camera crew, as, behind him, a village’s thatched huts  were consumed by flames,  « We had to destroy the village in order to save it, » brought up to the level of the now-global village.

    Although tyrants do fall before greatly superior allied forces, in taking History’s lesson from the annals of World War II, the Bush White House’s interpreters of History seem to have given too little account to the fact that World War II, though a  « victory » in  some  impoverished  and tortured sense of that term, could have very easily turned out quite differently had the alliance not developed so strongly or proven so determined.  In other words, History’s lesson is perhaps only that sometimes tyrants fall before heavily-armed Good allied in battle.

    I suspect that in arbitrarily predetermining the acceptable limit of their member-state’s  budget deficits, in the belief that wishing can make it so, the European Union’s deciders are creating more mischief than they are avoiding.  Similarly, I suspect that rather than women coming from  Venus and men from Mars, both men and women come from Earth and that we women and men are–our specialized roles in sexual reproduction apart–at some very fundamental level of both biology and psychology, practically indistinguishable.  

    It is one thing to cherish and celebrate diverse variety in nature for the interest this adds to life’s joys and another thing to insist upon a supposed diversity in a doctrinaire manner where that   diversity may not in fact exist in just the same way and for just the same reasons that it invites needless mischief to insist upon uniformity out of a doctrinaire prejudice where that uniformity does not in fact exist.   Why the distinctions between men and women are somehow inherently more to be insisted on or valued than our commonalities truly escapes my understanding–especially when it seems to me that the commonalities in both importance and in sheer quantity outnumber the  points of distinction.

    My experience belies the claim that each sex and each « race »–a greatly questionable distinction from the standpoint of biology–and each ethnic group experiences in its own way the commonly-shared pleasures and pains of living.   It is easy to claim that they do and much less easy to show that such differences as may seem observable are in fact attributable to something other than the well-known habit of « finding » in « human nature » that which we are predisposed to find.

 I have not found any compelling reasons to believe that experiences of human suffering or pleasures are susceptible to racial or sexual or ethnic differences.  On the other hand, I have observed that tremendous cruelty can be founded on the belief that there are wide and important differences in how the sexes, races, and ethnics experience the same objective set of circumstances. Or, to place in high relief the dangerous and insidious character of that concept, I’d point out that it  is urged that, indeed, there are no such things as objective sets of circumstances which, for all practical purposes, people experience in the same manner regardless of their gender, race or other real or imagined distinctions.

    One day, into the bookshop where I worked, came a young high-school or university  student in search of a novel to read in fulfillment of a class assignment.  I would like to find a novel to read for a class assignment and I can choose any sort of novel I like, she explained.  So, how can I help you?, I asked.  I want to find a novel by an author I can relate to, was the gist of her reply.  She wanted, in short, a novel written by a young-ish woman of her own race–which at this point I can’t recall with certainty–and, as nearly as possible, her other life-circumstances; and this was because, she explained to me, she’d more readily understand the author’s point of view in that way.  The point then, was to choose something  as nearly like herself as possible, and avoid what would be strange to her experience.  I could help by pointing out those novelists to her.

    Informing and underlying her notions about novelists and their work seems to be the same belief that various identifiable groups of people have their own manner of experiencing what are otherwise roughly the same circumstances–which are made special to them  because they are supposed to be somehow « different » from others in the same circumstances.

    By this logic, you’d be led to expect that, for example, the best evocation of the life and experience of an adolescent young man–the most finely drawn and truest to life–would be looked for among the work of male novelists.   With due regard for literary styles and passing fashions of taste, we’d nonetheless be likeliest to find that women draw the most exquisite portraits in prose and  poetry of women, and men of men according to this view literature.  And yet, to follow the example cited above, if  you asked me to  show you my idea of the finest, most exquisite evocation of a young man in his coming into adolescence in English literature, I would hand you a copy of Cold Sassy Tree by Olive Ann Burns.  For it is her portrait of the young Will Tweedy which is, in my opinion, the most brilliant evocation of a young adolescent boy so far to be found in English, not  something by Twain or Dickens or any other male writer I’ve ever read–including the superb Philip Roth who represents for me nearly the   nec plus ultra in contemporary American fiction.  

     Philip Roth is, by the way, another fine example of my point.   Apart from our both being men, there are few similarities in his formative experiences and mine.   By the logic of my bookshop customer assumptions about writers and their readers, Roth’s writing should come from experiences which are quite alien to my point of view and thus I should not expect this child of a 1930s American east-coast Jewish family to have much to say which should resonate deeply in me.  And yet, his writing does just that.

 Happily, there’s no need–at least from  my point of view–for an « either one or the other » in choosing what to read.  We can obviously read both and many, provided, that is, that we haven’t predetermined that there are some authors who, by virtue of their circumstances of gender, class,  race or other identifiable characteristics, simply cannot have as  much meaning to us as those writers whose circumstances more nearly resemble our own.

    While I « value » diversity in people’s tastes and desires, in the richness of their experiences, and in the traits which distinguish individuals, these fascinating differences ought not be made the  basis of the rights and privileges they are entitled a priori to enjoy nor their opportunities to  enter into a fair and open competition of talents.  My point is that, in making much of the importance of diversity, we risk failing to give our basic commonalities–which are great and vitally important–their due regard.

    In our present world circumstances, I estimate that the danger that we shall take too little account of how we are different is nowhere near as great as the danger that we shall take too little account of how we are the same and where and how and why those commonalities are to be recognized and understood and vindicated.  Both deserve to guarded against.  This is all the more true where rights or privileges are concerned.  There are certain rights which are of no use unless they can be vindicated by collectivities, others which are in essence individual in nature.  Still other rights can be vindicated by both groups and individuals and are seriously harmed if one of these or the other is denied or curtailed.

    Currently and for some years now, the forces of social disintegration have been significantly stronger than the tendencies toward integration.  This does not appear to be on the wane.  On the contrary,  there is reason to believe that disintegrative forces are going to continue to advance to the detriment of various socially valuable rights and privileges which can only be enjoyed collectively.
But to over-emphasize either the individual or the collective aspects of liberty is harmful to liberty.  Both require and deserve our protection.  An intolerant and rigidly-enforced conformity in personal morals is a threat to freedom; a reckless abandonment of common interests in some supposed defense of individual diversity is also on its side a threat to liberties.  Not only are we not obliged to submit to a false choice between one of these tendencies or the other, we are instead obliged for all of our sakes not to fall into the error of supposing that we must choose.

    Individual diversity and common interests collectively are both, and for their respective purposes and reasons, vital to a society which aspires to live in anything that resembles meaningful freedom.

Winning’s Everything

Saturday, May 6, 2006; Page A17

“In war, we have to win,” said Gen. Vo Nguyen Giap.”

“This was on television about 20 years ago, a PBS series about the war in Vietnam. Giap was sitting behind a desk, as I recall, a picture of lethal ease. He seemed amused to think he knew something that the Americans still hadn’t figured out. He added: “Absolutely have to win.”

 continued–

“For me, a former Marine corporal who’d heard some Viet Cong rounds go past at Chu Lai, Giap spoke and the heavens opened — a truth seizure, eureka. I finally had a useful, practical explanation for why we had lost after the best and brightest promised we were going to win. And nowadays, thanks to Giap, I have a theory, no more than that, about why winning is so elusive in Iraq.”

“I suspect that the people who run our wars, particularly the best and brightest, know when we fight a war that:

“We have to be fighting for freedom and national security.”

“We have to get the will of the country behind the war.”

“We have to maintain a strong economy to pay for the war.”

“We have to have allies.”

“We have to have God, freedom, the inevitability of history or some other philosophic entity on our side.”

“We have to have well-trained and motivated troops armed with the latest weapons.”

“Sure enough, we started out with all of that in Iraq, as we did in Vietnam.” …

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/05/AR2006050501475.html

 We had all of that?  Really?  We had “fighting for freedom and national security” as a motivating factor?  Whose freedom and whose national security is it?

 What do you think?