Hmm. I wonder what would happen if the Democrats were to take back Congress?
Bah! There's no real justice in this land until Bush, Cheney, and Ronald Dumsfeld are wearing prison orange.
read more | digg story
This is from Rx at http://thepartyparty.com.
Superb. As a mentor of mine once said, find a seam....
This, a very chilling article from the Washington Post. Andrew Tilghman writes bravely and honestly about an incident back in February in which he met Private Steven D. Green, a young solider who one month after he interviewed him would allegedly rape and murder a fourteen-year-old Iraqi girl and her family.
The article is moving for several reasons.
First there's Pvt. Green's sense of pointlessness. He's seen through the façade of the war, and his response to the futility is to dehumanize his enemy—not the politicos—but the other victims of the politicians' actions, the Iraqi people:
"We're pawns for the [expletive] politicians, for people that don't give a [expletive] about us and don't know anything about what it's like to be out here on the line."
Second, there's reporter Tilghman's unstated but subtly acknowledged responsibility for the subsequent actions of Private Green. I know it's terrible to have the benefit of 20/20 hindsight and lay blame on anyone. And I don't intend to do that. However, Mr. Tilghman is, I believe, bringing up questions regarding reportorial responsibility. Is this a case in which it would be right to lose objectivity and go up the chain of command to relay what he's heard to Pvt. Green's superiors? It likely wouldn't have done any good. It seems as if Pvt. Green is only looking for a way to cope with the unthinkable. Tilghman writes,
In the end, I never included Green's comments in any of the handful of stories I wrote from Mahmudiyah for Stars and Stripes. When he said he was inured to death and killing, it seemed to me -- in that place and at that time -- a reasonable thing to say. While in Iraq, I also saw people bleed and die. And there was something unspeakably underwhelming about it. It's not a Hollywood action movie -- there are no rapid edits, no adrenaline-pumping soundtracks, no logical narratives that help make sense of it. Bits of lead fly through the air, put holes in people and their bodily fluids leak out and they die. Those who knew them mourn and move on.But no level of combat stress is an excuse for the kind of brutal acts Green allegedly committed. I suppose I will always look back on our conversations in Mahmudiyah and wonder: Just what did he mean?
Finally, the pacifist and Buddhist in me feel compelled to pose an issue. This and the previous Vietnam generation are the first in which we've truly attended to the psychological consequences of war. As we see, with increasing frequency, soldiers returning from the battlefield with severe enough psychological scars that they're unable to live a normal life without intense therapeutic intervention, is it possible that we will discover that war is not only insane but that it is an insanity-making enterprise? If we learn that, will it be possible to argue (with any integrity) that war is a normal component of the human condition? Is it normal for one's “natural” activities to drive oneself insane?
No one, I would argue, not even the perpetrators of violence, is immune to its effects. Violence takes its toll on everyone. Even those of us who sit in our comfortable middle class homes, thousands of miles from the battlefields. Resist violence. Resist the insane actions of our government.
Shanti.
On July 22nd, 2005, British police and special forces were desperate to make some progress into the investigation of the London Subway bombings. In a show of arrogant bravado that would do the Bush Administration proud, Menezes was mistakenly suspected and killed by a bullet wound to the head, also on the subway, and a mere day after the bombings.
This, from Wikipedia:
The day after the shooting, the Metropolitan Police identified the victim as Jean Charles de Menezes, and said that he had not been carrying explosives, nor was he connected in any way to the attempted bombings. They issued an apology describing the incident as "a tragedy, and one that the Metropolitan Police Service regrets."
Menezes's family condemned the shooting and rejected the apology. His grandmother said there was "no reason to think he was a terrorist." It has been reported that the dead man's family had been offered almost £585,000 compensation. [10]
His cousin, Alex Alves Pereira, said, "I believe my cousin's death was result of police incompetence." Pereira said that police claims regarding the incident had been conflicting, and took issue with their pursuit of Menezes for an extended period and their allowing the "suspected suicide bomber" to board a bus. "Why did they let him get on a bus if they are afraid of suicide bombers?… He could have been running, but not from the police… When the Underground stops, everybody runs to get on the train. That he jumped over the barriers is a lie." [11]
The Brazilian government released a statement expressing its shock at the killing, saying that it looked forward "to receiving the necessary explanation from the British authorities on the circumstances which led to this tragedy." Foreign Minister Celso Amorim, who had already arranged to visit London, said he would seek a meeting with the UK's Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw. He later met ministers and had a telephone conversation with Straw.
The Muslim Council of Britain expressed immediate concern about the apparent existence of a "shoot-to-kill" policy and called on police to make clear their reasons for shooting the man dead.
I know, I know. It's a bit tacky for a site that has strong Buddhist roots, but I just can't resist.
From Ann Coulter (not that that's likely to happen again), by way of David Letterman.
I'm working on a longer, more complex, posting on why the US should have a more dimished role in ICANN, but in the meantime, this goes a long way toward making one of my points for me. Look at the numbers that this bill is passing by (410-15). I refuse to believe that there are only 15 intelligent representatives in the House. Rather, it's more likely that in an election year, they don't want to be seen as weak on child predators, so they instead create a weak law.
One the few representatives who sees the utter inanity of this legislation, a Michigan Democrat, John Dingell, states:
"So now we are on the floor with a piece of legislation poorly thought out, with an abundance of surprises, which carries with it that curious smell of partisanship and panic, but which is not going to address the problems.... This is a piece of legislation which is going to be notorious for its ineffectiveness and, of course, for its political benefits to some of the members hereabout."
I know that policy making is fundamentally a political process, and I'm all for the politicization of policy making, yet something's quite wrong with this picture. Rather than putting some sort of age verification in place, and, perhaps solving the whole issue of identity/authentication on the Internet, this bill threatens to destroy an entire industry, and will leave most of our children with nothing to fill the space that MySpace or LiveJournal (etc.) resided in. Hmmm. I wonder what they'll do on the computer when they can no longer interact with their peers--who, by the way, vastly, I dare say, infinitely outnumber the "evildoers" of the web? Do you think they might surf for p0rn instead? Maybe?
This bill is completely and utterly wrong. It's a mess.
World Honored One! It is as if some man goes to an intimate friend's house, gets drunk, and falls asleep. Meanwhile, his friend, having to go forth on official duty, ties a priceless jewel within his garment as a present, and departs. The man, being drunk and asleep, knows nothing of it. On arising he travels onward 'til he reaches some other country, where for food and clothing he expends much labor and effort, and undergoes exceedingly great hardship, and is content even if he can obtain but little. Later, his friend happens to meet him and speaks thus: “Tut! Sir, how is it you have come to this for the sake of food and clothing? Wishing you to be in comfort and able to satisfy all your five senses, I formerly in such a year and on such a day tied a priceless jewel within your garment. Now as of old it is present there and you in ignorance are slaving and worrying to keep yourself alive. How very stupid! Go you now and exchange that jewel for what you need and do whatever you will, free from all poverty and shortage.”
--from the Lotus Sutra, translated by Bunno Kato and W.E. Soothill
So the Israeli civilian deaths at the hands of "terrorists" are more morally problematic than the Lebanese civilian deaths because the Lebanese deaths are part of war's collateral damage? Israel is acting in "self-defense," and so their actions are permissible?
I'm trying to understand the rationale, but I'm failing to. Setting aside the problematic of whether or not this is actually self-defense on Israel's part, one must begin with the premise that violence is an appropriate response to violence. Yet, I question the premise. Does violence, in fact, stop violence? Or does it beget more violence?
And then there's the whole question of scale. This recent onslaught of violence is ostensibly in retaliation against the kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers. Two. How many Lebanese civilians have died? Rather than self-defense, this smacks more of a tactic one might use to control a weak, though implacable, foe: intimidation. Again I ask, when has violence ever, in fact, stopped violence? What violent organization willing to attack an enemy with overwhelmingly superior firepower has ever backed down when that enemy has responded with brute force? This is not a nation that Israel is fighting. It's Hezbollah. There's no enemy's back to be broken here. Each terrorist death, each civilian death, will spawn more terrorists--an order of magnitude more.
That this rationale for Israeli violence comes from our nation's ambassador to the U.N. is so problematic. It's not surprising, of course, especially since our nation is largely silent vis-a-vis the Israeli acts of aggression against its neighbors. We should not be surprised when the region erupts in a transnational Intifada--though one might well argue that Al Qaeda is just such an eruption. It is most certainly the "logical" extension of the premises the combatants--including our government--share.
These opponents are locked in a death match. Bound by their hatred and desire for revenge, they have fought and died, fight and die, and will continue to fight and die, not because they are strong men, but because they not strong enough to respond with what will actually stem the bloodshed and heal the grief: compassion, empathy, and love.
Don't fall for the rhetoric of common sense that would have you believe that violence is the rational response to conflict. It is irrational, and it is so precisely because it doesn't work.
--Peridyd
read more | digg story
Subhuti, someone who has set out in the vehicle of a Bodhisattva should produce a thought in this manner: "As many beings as there are in the universe of beings, comprehended under the term beings--either egg-born, or born from a womb, or moisture-born, or miraculously born; with or without form; with perception, without perception, or with neither perception nor non-perceptions--as far as any conceivable universe of beings is concerned: all these should by me be led to Nirvana, into that Realm of Nirvana which leaves nothing behind. And yet, although innumerable beings have thus been led to Nirvana, no being at all has been lead to Nirvana." And why? If in a Bodhisattva the perception of a "being" should take place, he could not be called a "Bodhi-being." And why? He is not to be called a Bodhi-being in whom the perception of a self or a being would take place, or the perception of a living soul or a person.
translated by Edward Conze
An interesting commercial out of China:
For the few of you who don't recognize it, this is a cooperative venture between Coca Cola and Blizzard Entertainment, of World of Warcraft fame. The commercial is intriguing for me on several levels.
First, let's take a look at what happens in the 30 second spot.
Three young women who are watching a WoW video with a large Orc in it are told by a music producer (which I'm basing on the fact that his office is decorated on all sides by gold records) that sexy sells. As he's telling them this--beginning with his calling them girls--he holds up an image of a Western, white woman and asks them if they get his drift. They firmly tell him no; he takes offense and says, "what do you mean, no?" and in the process is transformed into the Orc warrior the women were watching earlier. The young women don't back down and firmly respond "no means no" as they too are transformed into WoW characters, a Night Elf hunter (notice the ears and the bow), a human mage, and a human warrior. Sorry. I've played this game a lot.
The producer appears to be a formidable enemy, though he never scores a hit against any of the three women. These agile avatars, meanwhile, pwn this poor guy, and he goes down, leaving some phat loot to the players (a chest full of ice-cold Coke) in the process. Flash back to reality, where the women are drinking their Cokes and the producer now stands nearly naked himself and reaching to cover his genitals, clearly emasculated. Score one for the young women, right?
On the surface, this appears to be a feminist, anti-capitalist narrative. And in some respects, perhaps, it is. I'm certainly no expert on China or Chinese culture, so I won't pretend to be. Indeed, this commercial was in many respects a revelation for me. Yet, I do know something about feminism, and something about the game of WoW as well--enough, certainly, to feel that there's something disingenuous about this feminist narrative.
First, there's the issue of the Night Elf hunter. As anyone who's ever played the game can tell you, there's nothing more sexualized in WoW than female Night Elves. I'll leave you the task of finding a video of Night Elf females dancing, but suffice it to say that their moves would threaten the livelihoods of the best strip club pole dancers out there. Second, speaking of costumes, look at the way the women are dressed. Only the mage is dressed in a fashion that's remotely modest. Indeed the warrior seems to be absent any decent armor whatsoever. Watch how the camera follows them, which parts it focuses on as the action progresses. Finally, focus on that tableau at the end of the animation which then segues back into the real conference room/office. How are the women dressed? How real is their triumph, really, if it is meant to be a rebellion against his attempts at sexualizing them?
All of which leaves aside, doesn't it, the whole notion that it's Coke they receive as the boon for their valiant efforts. Again, the multinational appears to liberate us while really intending to put us back in our place, purchasing their products and, hopefully, seeing that as an appropriate and just reward for our labors. Maybe, just maybe, there's an unintended moral to this narrative. Isn't it the case, after all that, despite all of our heroic struggles, the rewards that we reap in support of governments and mainstream culture are meager and completely out of proportion to effort we put into gaining them? As consumer culture marches further and further across the globe, into places (like China) where I would have never expected to see it a mere generation ago, it's good to be reminded of the essential emptiness of the pursuit. You'd just better hope that it pays you a living wage.
In the final analysis, the rewards must be intrinsic. The extrinsic ones are just far too meager.
Food for thought.
Peri
How much more postmodern can you get than to get a town together to pay homage, pastiche, and parody one of the touchstones of the Impressionist movement?
Seurat, of course, was working against realism, and by extension, photo-realism, which is why I'd argue that this is parody--even if the parody is intending toward the honorific. Yet, I find the effort somehow admirable, in the way that Mann found the middle class to be worthy of esteem. There's something solid in the effort to recreate this. Humble and yet arrogant, both at once, with a solid dose of kitsch as well; don't you think?
How long the night to the watchman,
How long the road to the weary traveler,
How long the wandering of many lives
To the fool who misses the way.
If the traveler cannot find
Master or friend to go with him,
Let him travel on alone
Rather than with a fool for company.
Dhammapada (Chapter 5) Thomas Byrom Translation
My first official post at my new home.
Enjoy, everyone.
Peri
