War Handwavium

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2011/01/201112515334871490.html

Mubarak and the Revolt in Egypt

If you’ve been living under a rock, you may not have heard that there is a democratic revolt going on in Egypt. Timeline here:

Mubarak has been the tyrant of Egypt for thirty years. Mubarak is supported by the US because he has kept peace with Israel and the Israeli lobby in American politics is rather strong. The US sends billions of dollars in foreign aid to Egypt every year and gives it miitary support as well. Egypt’s military uses American made hardware. They drive M1 Abrams tanks and fly F-16 fighter jets.

Unsurprisingly, the US response to democratic aspirations in Egypt has been luke warm at best. This appears to be motivated purely by self interest. The US government would prefer Mubarak remain in power because Mubarak does what we tell him to do. If Mubarak is thrown out of power, then whatever democratic government emerges in Egypt might make the people of Egypt the priority of the Egyptian government rather than prioritizing the wishes of those in Washington D.C.

So, basically, the politicians in Washington would rather have a dictator puppet who abuses his population rather than have a democratic Egypt who might not listen to the US.

It is my humble opinion that this is short-sighted, selfish, idiocy at its worst.

America should support democracy, end of story. And attempts to keep puppet dictators in power at the expense of the local population has repeatedly backfired on America. The Iranian REvolution that overthrew the American puppet dictator the Shah being the textbook example. The problem seems to be that no one ever reads the textbook and instead go with their “gut” or other idiocy.

A democratic Egypt, brought about with strong support from America, would bring stability to Egypt and could be a friend of America. A democratic Egypt, brought about by the people of Egypt overcoming interference from the American government trying to stop them, will only delay the inevitable switch to democracy but will result in creating a people who resent America for keeping them under tyranny.

As for the players involved, Mubarak needs to step down immediately or blood is eventually going to flow all over Egypt. He seems to be dragging his feet saying he will hold on to power until the elections in September. Which signals that he is completely out of touch with what is happening in the streets. The people in the streets are not going to wait until September and trust that Mubarak will step down. Mubarak has won every “democratic election” in Egypt for the last thirty years. (hint, because Mubarak cheats.)

He has a history proving he is untrustworthy. And now he is telling his people “trust me, I will step down in September”. To which the people of Egypt are rightly saying “Hell no”

AlBaradei: AlBaradei is one of the opposition leaders. He was also the former head of the UN nuclear watchdog group. I have a good feeling about him. He’s very smart and seems to be driven by objectiveness rather than self interest at the expense of everyone else and rather than some dogmatic value system.

Omar Suleiman: The head of Egyptian intelligence. He worked intimately with the CIA in helping American spies torture prisoners in America’s rendition/torture program. D.C. would obviously love to have him in power as he has shown a willingness to do the dirty-work of American interests. The fact that he so willingly tortures people for America (and if reports are to be believed, he also tortures Egyptians to maintain his own power and that of Mubarak), is a massive red flag that this guy shouldn’t be trusted to do what is in the best interest of the Egyptian people.

The Muslim Brotherhood: This is an organization that has been around for not quite a century. They generally oppose violent measures. Osama Bin Laden condemned them for being non-violent. Several splinter groups have left the Muslim Brotherhood to form new organizations because MB wasn’t violent enough for them.

And yet in America, they seem to be portrayed as the boogeyman. I assume this is partly religious prejudice on the part of the West, and partly a fear that a strong democracy in Egypt is a democracy that cannot be made a puppet.

One problem right now is that the democratic revolt really has no leaders of any sort. This whole thing could collapse into being nothing more than changing the name of which thug runs the country. Only if the democratic aspirations can be represented politically, by leaders strong enough to stand up to thugs like Mubarak and Suleiman, will real democracy have any chance of surving the next few months.

My hope would be a strong, diverse group of leaders form some kind of transitional government. Bring in AlBaradei and the Muslim Brotherhood. Odds are that Sulieman and several of Mubarak’s thugs are going to try to hold on to some power, so they will have to be tolerated for a while longer. But then create a constitution which supports real democratic reform, get rid of the thugs through real elections, and maybe the people of Egypt will have a government that looks out for their best interests.

Mubarak still hasn’t stepped down and is still holding on for September, so I’m not entirely convinced this won’t yet result in some kind of Tiananmen Square crackdown and blackout. But right now, there is still hope for democracy in Egypt.

2011 02 05

Egypt
Obama

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/09/us/politics/09giffords.html

Violent Rhetoric and Giffords

Saturday, January 8, 2011, Representative Gabrielle Giffords, an Arizona Democrat, and 17 other people were shot by a gunman during a meet and greet she was holding outside a supermarket. Six of the victims have died. The gunman, Jared Lee Loughner, was captured, wrestled to the ground by people on the scene, and arrested. Authorities say that Giffords was the primary target of the gunman’s rampage. More details here:

Since then there’s been a lot of talk about the violent rhetoric espoused by the political Right and the Right has been pulling out all the smoke and mirrors it can find to redirect that talk away from them. So first some historical facts about the Right and violence:

Palin tells people, “if you see an Obama bumper sticker, stop the driver”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8CYThB_EtY&feature=related

A teabagger attacks a man and rams his car for having an “Obama” bumper sticker:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5pdwTQ4xA8

John Boener tells Democrat Steve Drehouse who voted “yes” on healthcare reform, “you may be a dead man”. Palin says she wants people in Minnesota to be “armed and dangerous”. RNC chairman Steele says he’s getting Nancy Pelosi “ready for the firing line”. Republican George Peterson (Republican) at a political rally reads the defintion of “revolution” as “forcable overthrow”.

The video lists a number of democrat politicians who recieved death threats, including Giffords. A pair of Tea party members posted what they thought was the address of Congressman Perriello’s address, encouraging tea party members to “drop by”. The Congressman’s gas line was severed after that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nr-0088ZLno

Tea Party candidate Sharron Angle discussing “second ammendment remedies” and “taking Harry Reid out”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQPBtFJzhnU

Tea Party candidate Sharon Angle on whether there will be a violent revolution says “anything is possible”.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwPEULV0qco

Rep Steve Cohen during an interview says Tea Party is violent and dangerous. To prove him wrong, he recieves a number of death threats from Tea Party defenders. The FBI investigated.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZ2lFIH3wE4&feature=related

Senator Murry was threatened by a man “there’s a target on your back now. … Now that you’ve passed health care bill, let the violence begin”. and “I want to fucking kill you”. Man was arrested for death threats.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZ2lFIH3wE4&feature=related

Rick Barber candidate for Congress runs an ad showing him talking to the Foundingn Fathers and ends with Jefferson saying “gather your armies”.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6iQ7ZDUutU4

Palin also had a political map with crosshairs on pictures of political opponents. The people targeted included Gabrielle Giffords. This map has been taken down since Giffords shooting.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/24/sarah-palins-pac-puts-gun_n_511433.html

The Right have recently shown a willingness to both spew violent rhetoric and to act on that rhetoric.

Teabaggers may respond to accusations of violence or violent rhetoric in one of several ways. Here are suggestions for how to respond.

Teabagger: It’s just words. We may have posted images of crosshairs on Giffords, but we didn’t pull the trigger.

Response: You’re a teabagging teabagger and you should be teabagged.

When they get upset, tell them it’s just words.

If they call “Teabaggers” hate speech, mock them for equating a name insult with actual violence and calls for violence.

Teabagger philosophy in short: We can call for violence, but don’t call us names.

Teabaggers response: “The Democrats have done it too”. This will often be followed by paraphrasings of things Democrats said. Paraphrased instead of actual quotes so as to allow for “artistic license” to further dramatize what was done.

Response: First, demand quotes and links. Second, check the quotes from a reputable site to confirm. Third look for false equivalences.

Sharon Angle saying people will seek “seconnd ammendment solutions” and suggesting that someone might “take Harry Reid out” is in no way, shape, or form, on par with Obama saying the Republicans are holding some bill “hostage”. One is a metaphor. One is a literal call for murder.

Separate turns of speech from literal calls for violence. Obama said “if they bring a knife, we bring a gun” during a speech. Most sane people would acknowledge that he wasn’t advocating people carry weapons at all. Teabaggers posted the address of a politician they didn’t like, suggested someone should “drop by”, and someone cut the gas line.

Turns of speech like “bringing a gun to a knife fight” is not the same as “here is Rep John Doe’s address” and then cutting the gas line to his house.

Distinguish between groups that show responsibility for their rhetoric and take it down as inappropriate and groups that are taking down violent rhetoric because right now its bad press but in a couple months when people have forgotten this shooting, the violent rhetoric and violence itself will be back.

Distinguish between parties where members self-police their own party, criticize their own party, allow others to criticize their party. Versus parties that can admit no wrongdoing, refuse to allow others to criticize their party, and do everything in their power to shift the attention and blame away from their party and towards anything else.

I have yet to see a Teabagger criticize the violent rhetoric of any of its party members or party leaders.

Teabagger: You can’t criticize the violent rhetoric because the result will be totalitarian cencorship of free speech.

Response: explain to them the concept of Slippery Slope. Hopefully they will grasp it. THough my experience in the last couple days is they will rehash Slippery Slope into many different insane forms.

Tell them that you want the Teabagger party and its leaders to show they take responsibility for their words, that they wouldn’t want someone like Loughner to take their rhetoric literally and go murder some politician.

At this point, they may argue that Loughner wasn’t inspired by Right wing violent rhetoric. Explain to them that this is irrelevant because the idea is to stop the rhetoric of murder before someone is actually murdered.

Teabagger response: Loughner was not inspired by Right Wing Rhetoric to murder, therefore it is OK for right wing rhetoric to advocate for murder.

The best response to this is to get them to state that philosophy directly: It is acceptable to use violent rhetoric, includiing calling for a politicians murder, in political discussions. More likely, they will dance around this idea but will try to avoid voicing it in such blunt terms. Get them to say it bluntly. Their refusal will reveal their hypocricy.

The point is not whether or not Loughner was inspired directly by violent right wing rhetoric. The point is whether or not the Right is willing to admit that it is POSSIBLE that someone might take their rhetoric as a call to action and commit murder. And does the Right care if someone is murdered because of their rhetoric.

2011 01 10

Ministry:Love
right wing extremism

Comments (1)

Peace

Peace on Earth.
Good will to all.

Most days, this wish is something I try not to think about too much because it feels like we are so far away from it that it’s just too painful to think about.

But not today. Today I feel a little more hope than usual. Christmas makes peace feel possible.

Merry Christmas everyone.
May we all feel a little peace today.

2010 12 25

Don’t Ask Don’t Tell Repealed

On 18 December 2010, the US Senate passed a measure which would repeal the Don’t Ask,Don’t Tell policy in the military. The Secretary of Defense said the Pentagon will begin implementing the repeal immediately.

Prior to the repeal, the Pentagon did a study to predict what impact repeal would have. In a survey of nearly half a million servicemembers, 70% said repeal would be positive, mixed, or no consequences.

I think its a good thing to get rid of bigotry. I dont know if it was worth the 500 billion dollar tax cut for millionaires the Obama gave away in trade to win this. I think it shoukd have been possible to repeal this a lot cheaper. But if Obama has shown us anything about his presidency, he has made abundantly clear that he is no horse trader.

I get the impression that he would see an item at a yard sale for $1 and demand to pay $3 for it just on principle. But only if the seller also allows him to provide free advertising and a ride on air force one.

2010 12 20

Comments (1)

http://reconciliate.wordpress.com/2010/02/17/ideas-for-pointing-out-white-male-privilege/#comment-1257

When I Use a Word Definitions Dont Matter

I ran across a blog discussing privilege. The thread started by. someone asking how to explain the concept of white male privilege to their white male boyfriend. I replied that privilege means a lot of different things to different people. And I said the strict definition would be a benefit the dominant class gets as a result of djscrimination that raises them above the equality waterline. The response?

“You’re boring.”

I guess diving into the nitty gritty of vocabulary can get boring. But they were asking for help for explaining a term to someone, so I sort of assumed that an exploration of meaning might occur at some point. But OK.

They also posted a thread here:

http://reconciliate.wordpress.com/2010/05/18/what-happened-at-the-end-of-flesh-and-stone-was-sexual-assault-qa/#comment-1282

The thread talks about how a scene in Dr Who is ‘sexual assault’. I disagreed and pointed out the definition of assault and sexual assault didn’t match what was in the scene. Their response?

“The legal definition of anything is wholly irrelevant to this discussion”

I am not sure what ‘sexual assault’ means to a person if they think the legal meaning of the term is ‘wholly irrelevant’, but I assume discussing the issues of the world are a whole lot easier when you get to throw around words and phrases and ignore any rigid definition of your words.

And call any attempt to discuss those terms ‘boring’. And then ban anyone from commenting who posts a definiton you don’t like.

I really shouldn’t be surprised. There is no possible way for the idea of ‘privilege’ to evolve into an all things to all people definition without people like that. People who call definitions boring, who use terms with legal meanings but say the legal meaning is irrelevent, and who ban folks who post links to dictionary definitions of words.

There is no other way to have humpty dumpty usages of a phrase without individual humpty dumpties running around in the world.

I don’t why it surprises me every time I run into a real live Humpty Dumpty. But it does.

2010 12 05

Comments (8)

http://www.warhw.com/2010/11/26/privilege-means-all-things-to-all-people/

So You Want To Discuss Privilege

So you want to discuss privilege.

OK. I’m interested in equality and why we’re not there yet.

But before we go any further, I have a few questions for you, just to make sure we’re on the same page as far as basic vocabulary goes.

If by privilege, do you mean some specific benefit resulting from discrimination that the dominant class receives that raises them above the equality waterline?

If not, (or if you don’t know what ‘equality waterline’ means) please read this:

If by privilege, do you mean “lack of awareness”?

If yes, please read the above links, then read this:

http://www.warhw.com/2010/11/24/privilege-or-awareness/

Do you agree with the idea that “one privilege is not knowing how privileged you are”?

If yes, please read the above links and then also read this:

http://www.warhw.com/2010/11/26/privileged-if-you-do-privileged-if-you-dont/

Do you agree that there is some forms of discrimination that is NOT privilege?

If not, please read the above links and then read this:

http://www.warhw.com/2010/11/26/privilege-is-a-subset-of-all-discrimination/

Is privilege something that I DO or I HAVE?

If you said “HAVE”, then read the above links and then read this:

http://www.warhw.com/2010/11/26/privilege-and-the-dicto-simpliciter-fallacy/

Can individual members of the dominant class renounce their privilege?

If you say “no”, then read the above links as well, because that’s the same as saying “HAVE” privilege.

Do you agree that the existence of systemic discrimination does not mean that all members of the dominant class are discriminating?

If you think all members of the dominant class are discriminatory to one degree or another, see the last link above, because you just committed a dicto simpliciter fallacy.

Do you understand the difference between systemic and individual?

If not read the dicto simpliciter link above.

Are you preparing to award me a space on some “bingo” card for making sure you’re not playing Humpty Dumpty with your teminonology?

Then read this link:

http://www.warhw.com/2010/11/18/humpty-dumpty-privilege/

If you read all the above and still want to award me a space on your bingo card, then go waste someone else’s time.

If you’re talking about privilege, then lets talk about privilege. But if you’re talking about awareness, call it awareness. If you’re talking about discrimination in general, call it discrimination. If you’re talking about discrimination deniers, call it that. If you’re talking about apathy, call it apathy. If you think you can humpty dumpty your way through a conversation about a minefield topic like discrimination, then you’re planting mines, not solving the problem.

If you don’t know whether you’re talking about systemic or individual issues, educate yourself. If you commit a dicto simpliciter fallacy, I’m not being homophobic, racist, or sexist pointing it out.

And if you think me pointing out your humpty dumpty approach or your failure to distinguish systemic/individual is indicative of how “privileged” I am, please, go waste someone else’s time.

2010 11 26

Privilege

Comments (7)

http://www.warhw.com/2010/11/18/humpty-dumpty-privilege/

Privilege Means All Things To All People

In 1 Corinthians, Chapter 9, Verse 19-23, Paul talks about how he transforms himself so as to identify with the people he is preaching to, to become like them so as to understand them, to be able to relate to them so as to connect with them. He summarizes: “I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some.”

That is one meaning of the phrase “all things to all people”. Another meaning is a meaning often attributed to politicians. A famous example is the “If by whiskey” speech a politician gave in response to a question as to whether he supported prohibition against whiskey or not. His reply could be summarized as this: “If by whiskey you mean the drink that tears families apart, then I oppose that. If by whiskey you mean the drink that lightens a man’s burdens and lifts his heart, then I support that.”

Still another meaning of the phrase “all things to all people” would be something like the term “privilege” and all the different meanings all the different people will give it when asked. The most recent and blatant example of this was the “Privilege Denying Dude” meme. Anyone could create a caption to go with the privilege denying dude. But since each person wrote their own caption, they demonstrated their own personal definition of the word “privilege”. And of the 217 captions I read before PDD was taken down, I saw at least 6 different definitions of the word “privilege”.

(1) Detrimental discrimination (discrimination yes, but it wasn’t privileged)

(2) apathy or lack of awareness

(3) denial of the existence of discrimination

(4) hypocricy of some kind

(5) non-sequitors (for example: global warming???)

(6) instances of reverse discrimination against the dominant group

And the one definition I did NOT see???

(7) discrimination that lifts a class above the equality waterline.

And of all 217 captions for the Privilege Denying Dude, I didn’t see a single example of a caption that pointed to a specific example that actually met a strict definition of “privilege” of a benefit that raised the dominant group above the equality waterline due to discrimination.

For a deeper discussion of the “Privilege Denying Dude” meme, see this:

The term “privilege” has come to mean all things to all people.

And that’s not a good thing.

Here’s an exercise for you: Find any thread on the internet about privilege that has a large number of public comments. Read through the comments. Figure out how many different definitions people are working from. Assign to each person a working definition of privilege that is reflected by their comments (possibly one of the 6 definitions above). Put each person into a “team” of all the other people who use the same definition of privilge.

Then look at how many “teams” disagree with each other over the definition of privilege.

What I have seen thus far is people on team 1 through 6 operate with completely different definitions, yet, none of the members of those teams correct each other for having a different definition. People using privilge to mean (2) apathy generally don’t get into arguments with people who use privilge to mean (3) denial of the existence of discrimination.

It seems that privilege really does mean all things to all people. At least for anyone using definition 1 through 6, they all seem to allow every other definition of privilege without argument.

The only disagreements between “teams” I have seen on public forums discussing privilege can be broken down into three categories: First, someone with definition 1 through 6 of privilege arguing with someone demonstrating that definition. Second, people arguing over, usually without distinguishing, individual versus systemic issues. And third, people looking for a workable definition of privilege (i.e. definition 7) arguing with someone holding another definition.

The first category are people who hold one definition of privilege arguing with someone who is demonstrating that definition. For example, someone with definition (3) of privilege might be disagreeing with someone who is denying that discrimination exists in whatever area that the first person says it exists. Someone denies discrimination is the root cause of a problem ends up arguing with someone who defines “privilge” as “denying the existence of discrimination”.

The second category is something I see often in discussions of discrimination. It basically comes down to people disagreeing over the differences between systemic versus individual discrimination. An example of this would be someone saying that all men are privileged, you’r ea man, you must be privileged, getting into an argument with someone pointing out that that’s a dicto simpliciter fallacy. Another example of this is when an individual police officer makes the news for arresting a black man, and some people immediately condemn him as committing racial profiling, while others say it hasn’t been proven for this particular case yet. The existence of systemic racial profiling doesn’t mean every white cop arresting a black man is profiling.

The third category would be people who are groping around for definition for actual privilege (a benefit that raises a group above the equality waterline) arguing with people using definition 1 through 6 or some other definition.

Category 1 arguments are valid debates other than the fact that they use “privilege” when they mean something else.

Category 2 and 3 debates end up being problematic because someone trying to distinguish the difference between systemic and individual discrimination is usually dismissed as one of the 1 through 6 definitions of ‘privilege’. i.e. 1: they are really racist, sexist, homophobic, and are trying to DERAIL the conversation. 2: THey’re just not AWARE of how privileged they are and this is just another example of their privilege coming through. 3: They’re DENYING that this is discrimination and that’s just privilege. 4: They are being HYPOCRITES in some way. ALternatively, the person trying to make the distinction between individual versus systemic discrimination might be accused of making the “TONE” argument. Or of being a “concern troll”. Or of winning another space on some “privilege bingo” card:

http://lakarune.tumblr.com/post/1090286813/white-privilege-bingo-card-considering-printing

Because, you know, no one who disagrees with any of the “all things to all people” definitions of privilege could possibly be anything but a homophobic, racist, sexist, asshole in need of a bingo card.

So, here’s the conversation I’m interested in having: What definition of “privilege” are you using? I’ve got 7 definitions to choose from above. You can make up your own if none of them satisfy you. If you’re using any other definition other than “a benefit created from discrimination that lifts a class above the equality waterline”, then I would say that what you’re talking about isn’t “privilege” and you should call it whatever it really is.

If the definition you’re working to is “a benefit from discrimination that lifts a class of people above the equality waterline”, then I’d say we agree and can move on to discuss whatever you wanted to talk about.

2010 11 26

Privilege

Comments (1)

Privileged If You Do, Privileged If You Don’t

There have been numerous threads and flamewars and posts about privilege on the internet. If you read through any of them that have any length to them, odds are in favor that you will find someone making this assertion:

One privilege is not knowing how privileged you are

If I don’t know how privileged I am, then I am privileged because of my ignorance.

However, knowing my ignorance, I might go out and try to educate myself, make myself more aware, make myself more empathic to those who feel the effects of discrimination.

And once I’m aware of the effects others feel due to discrimination, does that mean I’m no longer privileged?

If one privilege is not having to know how privileged you are, is it possible to become aware enough that I’m no longer privileged? Or does all my awareness give me is the knowlege of my inescapable privilege?

Because if “awareness” really has nothing to do with privilege, then why do someone nearly always say that one privilege I have is not being aware?

2010 11 26

Privilege