Bokonin's Xanga

Quick Short Essay---Some ideas about what rights should be in an ideal society

Fri, 28 Apr 2006 06:32:58 GMT

Rights

Rights should be as expansive as possible with the liberty, autonomy and wellbeing of all being the general goal. Rights should be limited by the principle that one’s rights do not extend to the point of violating another’s rights. We should thus have the right to do whatever we want as long as it does not violate someone else’s basic rights. People have a right not to be harmed if it is avoidable. So I can go out into the world and do what I want providing what I do does not harm another. At least if it is avoidable. If I could not have done otherwise or been reasonably expected to do otherwise I am exempted from being held responsible for rights violation. On the other hand If I attack someone else he has the right to harm me in self-defense (if otherwise unavoidable) because my rights to do what I want in pursuing liberty, autonomy and wellbeing do not extend to a right to attack another person. I have a right to pursue a business and become successful as I want with it, providing that in doing so I do not harm others or violate their rights. If I use slave labor or an unfair wage or no benefits or prevent my employees from unionizing I am violating their rights. Each person should have the right to life and liberty and to pursue their life goals and life their idea of the good life as long as it does not interfere with those of others to the extent that it could have been avoided. We should all have the right to free expression. As well as freedom of religion, thought and so on. As far as government goes its purpose would be two fold, to provide enforcement against violation of rights and to provide basic amenities for those who cannot afford them and keep things such as roads and hospitals running smoothly. Everyone ought to have the right to the minimum quality of life that could be considered a decent life where life, liberty and wellbeing are provided for. That is considering we have enough resources for all to live a decent life no one should have to spend their time worrying about what they’re going to eat or health care or education when they could more productively spend it contributing to society if financial concerns were not an issue. Education should be free, subsidized by government all through college and even graduate school, law school or medical school and other fields of study of a comparable level. Everyone ought to have the right to have these kinds of opportunities and should not be held back by financial difficulties but only by their own ability and effort. Thus, while education should be free, acceptance of applications should be granted strictly on the basis of merit. This ought to be a general rule throughout society so that the best person for the job or for any particular endeavor gets that job providing the maximum efficiency. Those who do not pass the bar exam for example do not have a right to be lawyers despite their lack of ability. They are free study law for free (provided they are accepted into law school), to take the bar exam as many times as they want but they cannot be a lawyer until they do. If a person fails at a certain endeavor it should not be seen as a mark against them but merely a cue that they should perhaps channel their abilities in a different direction. The benefit of the doubt should be given to the idea that everyone has some or other abilities they are best suited for and all encouragement and assistance should be provided to them in finding what it is.

Health care should also be free and guaranteed, subsidized by the government. Public transportation also. No one should be prohibited from the opportunities to better themselves simply because they couldn’t afford to travel, take care of their health or go to college. That would be the general principle behind this. The rationale would be not only that everyone has the right to a decent quality of life, but that were everyone to find what occupation is best for them society as a whole would benefit from the added efficiency. Such services would be paid for by a progressive tax system that goes into effect after people start making more than a certain amount of money a year. For example if you make less than a hundred thousand dollars a year perhaps you are not taxed at all or very little, as some have suggested. But if you make more than that, the percent you pay of your income should be gradually higher with the idea in mind that after a certain point no one needs all that money and it is simply wasted sitting in a bank collecting interest or in the stock market. If you have more money than you can ever spend you are indirectly causing harm to others through sin of omission as that money ought to be spend in a productive way and taxing you on it does not effect your actual lifestyle or quality of life one iota. The other way the social services would be paid for is by cutting subsides to businesses and by drastically reducing the money spent on the armed forces. There would be a right against coercion as others have suggested and a right against involuntary servitude. This would obviously include things like a military draft. The military would be strictly a defense force. Designed not to attack other countries but only defend ourselves from attack. Thus we would have no bases in any foreign country and no need for them or for military alliances. Problems would be solved and wars preempted through cultivating a careful diplomacy and encouraging fair trade and making ourselves as a country indispensable in an economic sense with a powerful industrial base so that no one would have an incentive to take actions that harm us as we could deter them economically. At the same time we should have a formidable enough defense that any aggressive nation would simply pay too high a price by attacking us. We should work for peace and diplomacy as a model for interaction between nations and not interfere unduly in the activities of other nations except to promote values of autonomy, liberty and democracy but this should be done primarily by setting an example and always by peaceful transparent means.

The system should be a democratic one where everyone has a right and opportunity to participate to as much of a degree as possible. Democracy should be as localized as possible with people able to elect those who directly govern them and affect their immediate lives. All important decisions such as those relating to war, and things that will directly affect a majority such as changes in social services and so on should be put to initiative to all the people to vote on. Every representative should be able to be recalled if considered to be performing ineptly or contrary to the will of the people. With these sorts of safeguards in place the goal would be to allow each individual as much say in the laws that directly affect their lives as is actually practical and feasible.

As many others have said I agree that certain laws should be in place to prevent discrimination on the basis of arbitrary criteria, race, gender, etc. However rather than having programs like affirmative action, which while I agree with it as it is in place in America currently I think it is justified for historical reasons as compensation to the descendants of African slaves for the disadvantages they’ve suffered, discrimination should be prevented by a strict adherence to a merit based criteria for hiring practices. The goal should simply be the best person for the position gets the position. One thus has a right to challenge one’s rejection if one can show that one was in fact best for the position but not simply because one happens to fall in a traditionally discriminated against category of person. For example women should be allowed to join the military and be fire-fighters. There should be not institutional discrimination based on gender. However the goal should never deteriorate into trying to fill a quota of such and such number of women fire-fighters. Certainly the standards of qualification should not be reduced for women but they should have to pass the same standards as everyone else including physical standards if they want a position that calls for physical strength and endurance etc. To lower the standards is to insult both the women who can pass them and the men who would still have to. I have every faith that there are women who could pass the same physical standards for firefighting and the military that men do. Those that cannot could simply try again and again until they do or find a line of work more suitable, with every financial assistance towards that goal from their government or community, for example a free training program, etc.

Finally there would be an absolute right for people to do whatever they want to their own bodies no matter how harmful as long as they are not harming or violating another’s rights in the process. Thus all drugs would be legal as one’s own body would be considered one’s absolute property. All forms of consensual sex would be legal. Suicide would also be legal as long as it was not coerced. No paternalistic law would ever be allowed to be passed even if a majority government wished to; I agree with Mill that they do more harm than good. Smoking would be allowed in bars for example. It would be up to the owners of the establishment to set the rules for things like smoking. Those who disliked smoking could find a non-smoking bar. As long as one was not unduly subjecting another to things like smoking such as forcing another to inhale second hand smoke, smoking would be allowed in public places. On the other hand smoking would be banned indoors in places like hospitals, planes, libraries and classrooms with the guiding principle here being that people need to go to those places whereas bars, casinos and so on are places of recreation that no one has any need to go to but goes to merely for enjoyment. The same would apply for other drugs. As long as one was not harming another while under the influence there would be no reason to ban drugs that was not paternalistic. On the other hand if a person was under the influence while getting in a car accident and harming another they would be severely punished for such irresponsibility perhaps with their driving license taken away presently. No one would be allowed to use the fact they were under the influence as an excuse for any crime, in fact it would be held against them with the understanding that everyone is responsible for their own actions. So while a person would not be punished simply for using cocaine. If they got out of control and beat someone up under the influence they would be punished severely not for being on cocaine but for beating someone up and they would not be allowed to use the fact they were under the influence as a mitigating circumstance, rather it would be held against them as an irresponsible choice for them as they obviously couldn’t handle it properly. This would apply to all drugs. However only adults would be allowed to use drugs as it could be argued that children were not old enough to make an informed rational decision on whether to or not. Exactly when a person becomes an adult, be it 21, 18 or 16 would be up for debate and might even vary depending on the community or even the individual. Perhaps at 16 a person is allowed to take an “adult test” and if they pass it they are treated like an adult. This would allow for the more quickly maturing members of society to be allowed the same rights as adults but would not force a less mature 16 year old to be tried as an adult for a crime since presumably he would have failed the test. Taking the test of course would be a choice never required. Then when a person turns 18 perhaps full adulthood is bestowed on them, unless they apply for an exemption claiming immaturity and they would then be required to take undergo a psychological evaluation. Some people might be permently impaired and never reach adulthood such as mentally retarded people. They would have the protected status accorded to children.

Tuesday, December 20, 2005

Tue, 20 Dec 2005 11:14:39 GMT

will someone please impeach this motherfucker already

Wednesday, December 14, 2005

Wed, 14 Dec 2005 02:09:22 GMT

Today, Tookie Williams was shot up full of lethal drugs in order to kill him so that American Justice can be served. It did kill him. Now he's fucking dead. See you on the flip side Tookie. Keep it real. Yeah Arnold had him snuffed. And a lot of fucking good it's done too. So very productive, the death penalty. Such an efficient expenditure of energy and money. Such a waste of human life and potential. Honestly, what's the point? What good did it serve besides making a few people feel better, imagining their own dead loved ones can finally sleep in peace and allow a few smug, self-rightous smegheads to pat themselves on the back. I'm not even going to bother going into why I think the death penalty is wrong. Why I think the State should not have the authority to kill its own citizens. Why no human has the right to take another's life unless in self-defense or defense of another. Why human and societal imperfection considered, a trial by jury can never be expected to be 100% fail safe at the best of times. Not that I'm knocking trial by jury, on the contrary I think its a vital right too often waived in this decaying system. All I'm saying is even the best legal system can make a mistake. And just so you know there is some debate about whether ours is the best. But that's irrelevent. You can never give back a life if you make a mistake, once you've taken it. At least if you have a guy in prison for life and new DNA evidence comes up that aquits him, while you can't give him back his missing years, he at least has his remaining ones. If someday it's proved Tookie was innocent...well, all they will be able to say is "OOOPS!!!" But that...that isn't even the fucking point right now.
All I can really say and the first thought that hits me is:
What a waste.
This guy was doing some good with his life, goddamit. Trying to make amends as best he could for the mistakes he'd made. Frankly that's more than a lot of us, maybe most of us, do, let alone convicted murderers. You don't see Charles Manson talking to troubled teenagers. Timothy McVeigh didn't give a fuck. Whether he did the deed they say he did or not it's painfully obvious that Tookie Williams was trying to do his best to fix his own fucked up karma and pick up what he could of his own mess in the time he had left.
Today Arnold and the State of California snuffed out his life.
Yeah Arnold. It's a mystery how this guy is even in this posiiton. It's beyond ludicrous, and it's beyond the looking glass. Arnold in Wonderland. It blew my mind that Californians voted for what is essentially a cartoon character. I wasn't around when Reagan was making movies so i dont know if it felt the same way when he switched to politics. But Arnold will always just be a big dumb musclebound fool to me. I actually kinda liked him when he was just doing sometimes entertaining action movies. He seemed like he had a sense of humor. Could laugh at himself unlike Stalone or the rest of those goons. But it was probably all just a big P.R. prelude to this, the absolute absurd main act. Arnold the Guvenator. Yeah I could write a separate essay on that whole bizzaro phenemonon. I quickly decided I didnt like Arnold when I saw what he was like behind his onscreen persona. And this feeling was only reinforced when i learned more about him then I really ever wanted to in the run up to the california recall election. The last action hero was in fact nothing but a misogynist, groupie-groping hitler admirer! Then I saw what he did as govenor, a sharp turn to the hard right. Not even really holding up the pretense of being the supposed moderate Republican (practically an oxymoron these days) he'd advertised himself as. But when it comes down to it, all one really sees when one looks at Arnold is a narcissistic bodybuilder who spent way too much time looking at himself in the mirror at a formative part of his life and has never quite been able to get over himself. This pathetic dipshit probably really does see himself as some sort of great man and not the punchline most of the rest of us have come to despise. I imagine that his self-conception is of a kind of American demagogue imported from the ashes of old German fascism and the father figure adoration of Freud's worst wetdreams. You could take Hitler seriously though. Charlie Chaplin moustache or no. Even Chaplin's own portrayal of the great dictator in its scathing satire has done nothing to lessen the sheer horrific majesty of Hitler's seemingly unadulterated evil as it exists now in the collective consciousness of our culture. How many people automatically and almost unthinkingly reach for Hitler as a source of analogy when seeking to convey unimpeacable evil? Was any of this what Arnold had in mind when he said he admired Hitler for his "strength"? God only knows. But my point is that Hitler could be taken seriously almost to the point of embodying the concept of evil itself in the modern world. He's practically usurped Satan's own dark throne in his solidification of this role as the premere villain of the twentieth century, much as a cartoon Sadamn Hussein did in the South Park movie. But Arnold's not even three dimensional outside his movies. Still got the same damn one-liner quips while running for "govenator". For the last four years half of my brain has simply wished to deny that many of the events that did took place. "No Bush didnt win (read: steal) the elections". "No. No. No. That didnt happen. No. They didn't use that as excuse to invade Iraq. No, goddamn it, this shouldn't be so easy for them. Why is it unfolding like a fucking action movie script. Why??". But of course all these horrible things, they did happen. And now the perpetrators of demonic imagined destiny are writing history as fast as they can and re-writing it even faster.
But this whole Arnold shit. Jesus. Why didn't he just literally run as the character "the Terminator" from the 2nd movie. Cos that's who people were fucking voting for. I goddamn guarantee it.
Anyway...I won't ever understand how you fuckwits in California who voted for him think...maybe you just dont...that would explain a lot of things actually. Well, the long and short of it is I'm actually toying with the idea of throwing away all my Arnold movies. At the very fucking least I hope that heartless fuck loses his re-election campaign. God, if ever there were a silver lining to come from this let it be that. Please Lord terminate this flop of a sequel before it gets produced. So what do you think? Should I get rid of The Terminator, The Terminator 2 and Total Recall? They're pretty decent movies. Maybe I won't throw them away. I understand how melodramatic that would be. Equally absurd wouldnt it be? Do I really want to give in to that rather lame impulse? Or is it the principle of the thing? And what principle is that? Maybe I should send them to him with a note that says "from a former fan" like a friend suggested. I was never that much of fan though. The Terminators are good movies. and Total Recall. Maybe Last Action Hero. That's about it. Predator pretty much blows. And Conan the Barbarian might be the worst movie I've ever seen in my life, bar none. But even though the explanation of time travel is ludicrous and nonsensical and contradictory in those terminator movies (it was way more coherent in the Back to the Future series) they are damn entertainting. I just bought "The Terminator" part one from a thrift store for a dollar and believe it or not I watched it for the first time a couple weeks ago. Yeah I may hate fucking fascist Arnold as a person. And in fact I do. I may think he is just overall a bad person, frankly. And well, yes that's also true. But I believe we ought to be able to separate a person's art from the personality and actions of the artist. Just cos you don't like the artist or disagree with him on this or that or even your most cherished values, it doesn't mean the art automatically sucks too or that you should force yourself to stop enjoying it. Salvador Dali may have supported Franco and even been a bit of a fascist himself but that doesnt stop him from being my favorite painter. Axl Rose may be a fucking douche bag and always was but theres at least three or four rocking songs on the first Guns N' Roses album. Hmm maybe that's not the greatest example. Charles Manson may have been....but....look at your game girl...hmm..never mind. I think you get my point.
It really is a shame that we can't just send a Terminator back in time to prevent Arnie ever coming to power in the first place or maybe just melt him down after the terminator movies. I'm not advocating his death of course, just the death of his career and ability to cause the deaths of others as he's done today. What gets me is that this shmuck took a week to decide the life of the man. Making a great show of his wise deliberations. His careful considerations. His quiet determinations. And then? After rasing hope to an apropriately unrealstic level...he fucking kills him anyway. And the result of all this pondering? What did the "great man" conclude in the end. What was the basis for his decision? His explanation amounts to "Tookie didnt say he was sorry so I had to whack him". Here is a a closer paraphrase of what Arnold actually said:
"One thing he hasn't done is the one thing he needs to do, show remorse."
Yeah, except Tookie claims he's innocent. How the fuck are you supposed to apologize and show remorse for murders you say you didn't do? Huh? Huh? Answer that you musclebound ignoramous!!!! Just assuming that it's at least possible that Tookie is indeed innocent of these crimes like he claimed, then this fucking kindergarten cop-out is asking an impossible burden of the man. What does he want him to do? Fucking lie and just say he did it even though he didnt???? Fucking hell! What is this? Theater? Should we have Bertolt Brecht write some melodramatic yet strangly moving music for it? Is this just a show? Yeah it is cos he's supposed to show remorse. Don't have to feel it. Just show it. One more time you fucking Austrian anthropoid ape-man, lets run through this puzzle once more time you meatheaded moron and see if you can piece it together. Here it is again:
So, just hypothetically for the sake of argument just saying he was innocent, should he have apologized for the murders anyway and shown remorse even though he didn't do them? That's absurd. That's a Tom Stoppard play!!! No, it's Samuel Becket!!!!!!!!You made us wait for Godot for a week Arnold. Why make absurd theater of this whole thing? Admit it fucker! You were always gonna kill him and you were never gonna spare him.

Now, you might think perhaps I'm being too harsh on this Hitlerphiliac hulk who fancies himself worthy to dish out death to the deserving. I admit I've sometimes been guilty of this vice in the past. So let me attempt to adopt a more reasonable, a more fair and balanced, a less emotional, a less cynical attitude. Let us attempt to crawl inside the mind (such as it is) of the Blonde Beast himself. Just what was Arnold thinking. What was his thought process.
Perhaps it went something like this: Perhaps Arnold just thought "well the facts show the Big Black Man did it and the facts can't be wrong so if he says otherwise he's lying and he's unrepentent, and so it is right that he should die". Maybe you are pursuaded by the line of reasoning that goes "he can't be pardoned for what he won't admit to". Maybe that is a convincing and rational argument worthy indeed of our consideration. Yeah maybe. Maybe Twins was a good movie. In some alternate universe. Maybe in some weird bizzaro Arnold world, a movie that revolves around a pregnant male body builder sounded like a good premise for a plot, was a critical smash and a blockbuster success...maybe or maybe it just sounded like a good idea at the time. Maybe. And Maybe I'm running out of lame Arnold references and should just get to the point already. Well all this may very well be true.
But the thing is...everyone who follows this line of reasoing is presupposing Tookie's guilt. And the facts of the case just aren't that clear. Are they ever really crystcal clear when human life is at stake? When race is a factor? When...yes, yes but in this case it really is a little murky. So think about this:
From what I've read two of the star witnesses for the prosecution were convicted felons who were promised benefits in exchange for testifying which one would think might compromise their testimony just a little. Sure, sure, sure. I know. That's how it always goes. That's how the system works. No big deal. No big aberration. Just business as usual. Yeah???? And ??? AND??? The point isn't whether this shit happens or even whether it happens a lot. The point is if and when it happens, is it right and doesn't it comprimise the furtherance of justice? And do I have to even ask this last question? Do we care about justice? Do we care about truth or do we just care about guilty verdicts and finding scapegoats? I'm not saying he's innocent. Who really is these days afterall? Throw a rock. Tookie was very fucking far from being a saint. The guy founded the Crips. Hardly a spotless little lamb. Sacrificial goat maybe. But not a blameless lamb. Okay. But he wasn't convicted for starting a street gang and whatever shit he presumably did that he didn't get cought for. And, at least in theory, he wasn't killed by lethal injection because he started the Crips. He was convicted for specific murders. That and that alone is what comes into play here in a consideration of his guilt. The other shit is neither here nor there. But on a side note, if remorse and redemption is what Arnold got his panties in a bunch about, don't you think devoting the last 20 years of your life to try to undo some of the ill you've done, writing children's books against gangs, warning kids agaisnt gangs. Arranging a truce between the Bloods and the Crips? From what I understand this guy had credibility with gangs. Maybe the cynical LA cops who like to run their mouths to the papers about this case are right. Maybe today's Crips, Snoop Dogg aside, don't know who Tookie was and don't give a fuck. Yeah lots of maybes. Well, so what? The real point is the guy was obviously trying to make a difference and make amends as best he could for what he did do. And the murders? Well he's always maintained he didn't do those. Maybe he's just lying. Maybe he's just a lying rat-bastard murderer who deserved to die. Look, I'm not even suggesting that he wasn't. I'm not even saying he was innocent of those murders. That's not what I'm saying. Cos I don't know. I don't know who knows. I don't know the truth. All I'm saying is that it's at least possible that he didn't do it. All I'm suggesting is that this was not a clear cut case. That's all. But with that comes the inescapable conclusion that there was a window of possibility that the govenor was about to kill a wrongly convicted man. And this isn't that far-fetched. This shit does happen. Far too often. Maybe it didnt happen here. Maybe they got their man. But It could have. That's all. That's all I'm saying. And I guess the fact that it was an all white jury is irrelevent too. I would never dare to suggest that this country might be just a little prejudiced. Oh no. Like John Howard, Prime Minister of Australia said, "we are not a racist country". Of course we arn't. Countires can't be racist. A Nation state is an abstract concept that cannot have attidudes or attributes such as "racist". It is a void that we project our own attidutes and attributes onto. A canvass we spurt our Jackson Pollack jism on to create the final masterpiece we lovingly call our own and pretend it has always existed and always had to look this way. Well doesn't it always look that way after the fact? But the actual attitudes come from individuals. Still, the thing is, some of those individuals, do have predujdices. And a white person is simply more likely to be prejudiced against a black man than a black person is against another black person. For whatever reason. And well, there's something to be said for the concept of the jury of one's peers. Was the all white jury, made up of Tookie's peers? I don't mean that in a moralistic sense but in an experiential sense and in terms of class, and of course, in terms of race. Could any of those jururs really empathize for a minute with the kind of life a black man who started a violent gang has led, and the circumstances that led to his actions? I don't know. You decide. Make up your own mind on this and all things. I don't know the answers to these questions. I think they're worth asking though. But in the end...it doesn't bring anyone back to life. Not the original murder victims that Tookie may or may not have killed. And certainly not Tookie. I predict that much of Holywood will arbitrarily deify him of course, even more than when he was alive, as they ignore other individual death penalty cases and the death penalty as an issue in and of itself. The insidious idea will be pushed forth that while Tookie should have been spared, special saintlike Tookie, Joe Blow on Death Row deserves what he gets. And it will keep on like that as long as we feel the need to make human sacrficies to some imagined Gods of Eye-for-Eye Justice in this blind, blind world. And it stay that way until America finally decideds to join the civilzed world and outlaw the death penalty altogether. But until that day. Life goes on, for the rest of us. Oh well. Who cares right? Do I really care? Do I really give a fuck? Do you, if you're still politely reading along at this point in this overblown tirade? It's not like I actually knew this guy I'm writing about. Chances are you didn't either. Just another black guy on death row to most of us. And now he's dead. It's all so banal and so pointless and so predictable. But...nevertheless...
You know i was kinda surprised I have to admit. I didnt actually think Arnold had much of a heart but I thought he would look at this from a shrewd polititian's point of view and seeing how his approval polls are about as low as Bush's right now, maybe he'd think "hey here's a chance to show I'm not quite such a right-wing prick as I've made myself out to be". (Cutting nurses benefits should be too shameless for anyone to contemplate but Arnie has no shame aparantly). Well turns out I was wrong. But then again maybe I'm not wrong about my theory of Arnold's motives but just wrong about a few background facts. I just found out that, as well as the majority of Californians supporting the death penalty, (real fucking liberal oasis isn't it, the sunshine state?), aparantly the majority supported killing Tookie in particular. So I suppose the people have spoken. And the people crave ritual killing. Its like a gladitorial event, in a way. The fucking emperor looks out at the people imperiously (as emperors are wont to do), and, benevolently (as many like to see themselves), gazes down and gauges accurately the reaction of the roaring crowd. The great man gives a majestic, stately, princely, sagely...thumbs down! His penalty is death. And that penalty must be paid. Who cares if this guy was actually doing some good in the world from his prison cell? Who gives a fuck that we are one of the last western countries that still uses the death penalty? Who really gives a shit that we exceute minors for fuck's sake! Puting us in an elite group, as has been said by others before, with Iran and Saudi Arabia! Incidentally, the other thing those two countries have in common with us, besides despotic rulers, is a highly religious overall population, along with a powerful and influential religious fundamentalist subsection of that population. Make of that what you will. I didn't say shit. Just reporting the facts. Just the facts, ma'am. But I've just gotta say, man, it sure feels good to be living in the greatest country in the world! Wow, I sure am glad I was lucky enough to be born white and middle class, Christian, and American, that's all I know. I don't know why more people don't apperciate the wonderful "freedom" we have to offer the rest of the world. Those Iraqis, for instance, what a a buncha ungreatful assholes. Can you say sour grapes?

Wednesday, September 07, 2005

Wed, 07 Sep 2005 23:37:19 GMT

well at least someone in the mainstream media has some fucking balls:

http://media.putfile.com/olbermannswings

Tuesday, August 09, 2005

Tue, 09 Aug 2005 01:26:29 GMT

The American Hero Award this week goes to:

Cindy Sheehan
http://peacejournalism.com/ReadArticle.asp?ArticleID=4557

Wednesday, July 20, 2005

Wed, 20 Jul 2005 10:49:49 GMT

Moral Relativists? Nihilists or just confused? Actually a bit of both.

"Many fear that the triumph of global capitalism has homogenized the globe and drained the world of uniqueness and eccentricities. By the same token, the fear of this global threat has fueled an opposite reaction--toward tribalism, nationalism and provincialism. But heaping abuse on everything global and universal has become the fashionable hallmark of postmodernism...the trouble with this way of thinking is that it is hostile to EVERYTHING universal. So much so that it confuses morality with imperialism, universal moral norms with normalization, and human rights with homogenization. In [correctly] rejecting the global homogenization of capitalism, they [mistakenely] reject the moral law that human beings share in common...if human beings from different cultures do not share the most elementary moral principles, then diplomacy is impossible, and all disputes must be settled through war."
---Shadia B. Drury

The above quote is from the book I'm currently reading, called "Leo Straus and the American Right" by Shadia B. Drury. I highly reccomend it to anyone who's curious about how the hell our country (USA! USA! USA!) has got to the place it is and just what goes on in the little minds of the people who happen to be running it. It's extremely disturbing and also absolutely fascinating. The book is a dissection and critique of the philosophy of Leo Strauss, the ultimate founder of the "neoconservative" movement that has now taken over America's government like a cancerous festering canker sour. Interestingly, what I'm discovering is that Strauss and his neocon spawn and all their minions who now occupy the white house and Iraq, despite their "conservative" pretenses at heart may actually be better described as postmodernist radicals. Yes, thats right. The neocons are postmodernists. Why? Well in a nutshell because they don't really believe in truth. They believe that this thing we call "reality" is in fact shaped wholesale out of the void by whoever has the strongest will. According to the author, Strauss and the neocon's philosophical ideas about reality and morality are bascially a perversion of Nietzche.

Anyway, I came across that striking paragraph above that for me really gets at the heart of everything I loath about the postmodern, relativist way of thinking about morality. The author was specifically talking about Strauss and Carl Schmitt (German philosopher and HUGE nazi) who was a big influence on Strauss. I left those specific refrences out of the quote above because I think the quote applies to supposedly "liberal" postmodernists just as well as to supposedly "conservative" ones.What Drury says about the confusion of imperialism and morality, and human rights and homogenization, universal moral norms with enforced normalization, etc, really struck me as the crux of what is wrong with that way of thinking about reality and about morality. Reading that passage it occured to me that this confusion in postmodern moral relativist thinking crops up everytime I have an argument with some goddamn anthropology major (actually its usually the same one) who is trying to convince me that there is absolutely nothing wrong with involuntary female circumscion (gasp that is...i mean to say "clitorectomy", sorry for that accidental slip). Such hypothetical anthropology majors and or teachers (both of which I have nothing but the highest respect for) will say "clitorectomies" (such a wonderfully sterile neutral medical sounding word) are perfectly okay simply because they are part of a culture. So was slavery in the United States until not so long ago but I guess that's besides the point. Anyway they tell me earnestly, it isn't our place to critisize in any way shape or form any culture that is not our own. What fucking bullshit I say! (With the utmost respect). How can permenently mutilating underage girls, often against their will, be anything but utterly morally wrong? Even if "voluntary" it is under severe pressure from their society and so in fact arguably not truly consensual. As for the results, at best, it is depriving of them of a great deal of sexual pleasure for a lifetime, at worst a botched "operation" may end in a painful death. It is clearly immoral, outside of self-defense, to cause harm to another against their will. To point this out is not the same thing as "cultural imperialism". Nor is being in favor of human rights throughout all cultures the same thing as some modern version of the "white man's burden". It's absolute nonsense to say so and its an ad hominem attack anyway with the implicit accusation of racism. Really, isn't it more patronizing to say "oh go right ahead we believe clitorectomies are just fine for that reason that it is you the noble savage who is performing them. Now we in fact wouldn't allow that here in our culture but we don't want to disrupt your wonderful culture by telling you that we happen to find some aspects of yours repulsive and morally reprehensible. Please continue with the mutlati...that is clitorectomies so we can study you without contaminating our samples..er..that is..we mean..your culture." Isn't that attitude much more patronizing and implicitly racist than to simply say all humans should be treated equally and every violation of human rights condemmed regardless of where it happens? Now I'm not saying, OF COURSE I'M NOT, that that patronizing attitude I described is the one held by the anthropology students and professors who defend clitorectomies. Naturally I'm not saying that as that would be putting words in their mouth. I was in fact satirizing them for our mutual amusement and not directly quoting anyone. However, I think such an attitude can be inffered much more readily from what they do say than can an accusation of harboring a white man's burden from the words of a humanist like myself. Another favorite argument of aforementioned anthropology majors and professors (who I hold in the highest esteem and count at least one as a personal friend) is to say that since "we", i.e. Americans, have involuntary male circumcision of infants in this country on a widespread level, we should therefore shut up about "clitorectomies" in other cultures since "we" have a "similar practice" in our own. Well, first of all, I happen to be against involuntary male circumcision of infants or anyone else in this country or any country. Secondly, sinice I consider myself a citizen of the world not just America, my pointing out of injustice does not have to be relegated to what goes on in America. That's just an attempt to force me through threat of being called hypocrite to submit to their unfounded assumption, which is to them practically dogma, that one cannot critisize other cultures. Thirdly, just because a large number of Americans circumsize their kids for some idiotic superstitious reason does not mean that I am some how complicit in that simply by being an American myself. Fourthly, it is completely self-serving that they willfully ignore the huge difference in scale between male and female circumcision in regards to the degree of damage that is done by such wonderful "procedures". Yes, the prinicple is the same of course, but since I am against involuntary mutilation done to either gender the point is ultimately irrelevent as it would not succeed in making me a hypocrite even if the attempt to do so wasn't riddled with logical flaws. But I see even more clearly now after reading that passage from Drury that these defenders of horrific things like clitorectomies arn't willfully callous assholes, they've simply confused concern for human rights with what they call "cultural imperialism" in their incredibly dogmatic attempts to be as universally relativist as they possibly can. Universally dogmatic relativism. Try and unravel that onion of irony! Yeah, they arn't evil people, postmodernists, just a little...well...never mind. Of course, postmodernists and even moral relativists are often quite intelligent and some also are wonderful people, (all neocons excepted). But they are also wonderfully confused...

note:
The words in parenthesis within the quote by Drury are added by me to make my interpretation of her quote more clear and to help prevent what I think would be a misunderstanding of the author's intent. i.e. Although it's always possible, i don't think the author is saying "capitalism is the moral law that humans share in common". This seems obvious and maybe adding those words were unneccesary. Hopefully I didn't insult anyone's intelligence by doing that but I thought it would make for better clarification.

Saturday, July 02, 2005

Sat, 02 Jul 2005 08:38:22 GMT

"This is a regime run by an unelected few that only allowed its hand-picked candidates to run in an election that was well short of free and fair."
-White House spokesman Scott McClellan

Don't worry he was only talking about Iran.

Saturday, June 25, 2005

Sat, 25 Jun 2005 16:21:23 GMT

New president of Iran is...Ringo?

http://www.detnews.com/2005/nation/0506/25/natio-227618.htm

Monday, June 20, 2005

Mon, 20 Jun 2005 20:08:26 GMT

"One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief. My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it. If I have a chance to invade---if I had that much capital, I'm not going to waste it. I'm going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I'm going to have a successful presidency." - George W. Bush, 1999
http://www.gnn.tv/articles/article.php?id=761

Friday, May 06, 2005

Fri, 06 May 2005 15:45:13 GMT

NEW PROOF THAT BUSH PLANNED FROM AS FAR BACK AS 2002 TO MANUFACTURE EVIDENCE TO JUSTIFY THE WAR AGAINST IRAQ?
Ray McGovern's article can be found here:
http://www.counterpunch.com/mcgovern05052005.html