What's So Bad About Iran And The Bomb?

It is obvious that at all costs, even the cost of our launching a nuclear attack on them, Iran must be stopped from getting the bomb. This is because Iranians, unlike Americans and Israelis, are not moral enough to have such weapons. Iran is part of the U.S.-identified axis of evil - they are not rational actors, do not have any legitimate self-interests (like, for instance, protecting  themselves from the U.S. and Israel, who both do have nuclear weapons), are fanatical, maniacal, radical death-cultists, unfazed by the certainty of own retaliatory destruction, religiously driven (if a real god like Jesus can tell George W. Bush to invade Iraq, heaven only knows what a false god like Allah could tell Iran to do).

If Iran became a nuclear power it would destabilize the region (it was different when Israel got nuclear weapons, that stabilized the region, because...well, be fair, Israel is the Judaeo in Judaeo-Christian). An example of how it would destabilize the mid-east is that America wouldn't have been able to invade Iraq and Afghanistan which both border on Iran and are universally recognized as two wars which made the region oh so much more stable then it was. Vice President Cheney could not talk openly about launching a nuclear first strike on a non-nuclear Iran because, hey, Iran wouldn't be non-nuclear. You could image how much less stable that would make things. Iran must not be allowed to do anything that limits our ability to attack, bomb, threaten, ignore, or insult them. If the west has to take Iranian interests into consideration, it will be a humiliation of America unlike anything since the failure of the invasion of Canada in 1812.

We need third world or developing nations to remain third world or developing nations so that we are able to do what we need to do to them militarily, to protect our interests. What if Ronald Reagan had let Grenada get the bomb? He would have been unable to invade the island and the US would still be living under the shadow of failure in Vietnam. Do we really want to jeopardize the U.S militarist ego like that? Who will protect us from Iran then?

War is never the first choice but there is a whole private-public, media, political, infrastructure to ensure it will always be the easiest. To start, anyway. Everyone is against war once it's started, but for it before it begins. As soon as a politician has declared war he or she starts talking about how they are bringing the war to a close. Before war starts no one wants to talk about avoiding it. This is because we in the west (and this includes Israel) really do like war. We go out if our way to have them, we rise to power through them, we profit by them, we build economies around them, we are proud of being at war. The fear I have is what if the Iranians turn out to be just as territorially greedy and power obsessed as we are? What if the Islamic state actually turns out (they haven't invaded anyone in 700 years) to be just a nuclear warhead away from being like us. We act like Iranians have some genetic, ethnic, religious, cultural tic that makes them so different from us that they can't be trusted with the weapons France and China and Israel and the U.S. have...but what if they turn out to be just like us?

Rags to Riches to Love?

From The Actual, But Informal News File:

Two brothers in Hungary spent their lives so poor they had to live in a cave and sell whatever they could scavenge or salvage from trash piles. Now in their forties, they have just been informed that they have inherited six billion dollars. Long lost heirs.
   
Their immediate reaction, as reported by MSNBC? That when they were living in a cave no women would look at them, but that maybe now they have money they thought that might change. You think? Six billion dollars?
   
But lest you think that implies something mercenary and unflattering about women, you know that with that much money the brothers will make sure they are surrounded by the youngest, most beautiful, easiest women.
   
It would be a  rare man who inherits three billion dollars (half of six billion) and moves from his cave into the local village and marries a fifty year old woman who works in the local bakery and lives in a cottage the rest of his life.
   
They are quoted as saying they want a "normal life", but my guess is that it won't be a normal life they get, any more than it was a normal (by our standards) life they had before. It may not even be a good life. You and I, we may dream of having three billion dollars, or be afraid of being forced to live in a cave, but the lives we work to build for ourselves, 'normal lives', are most likely, if they work well, to be a stable marriage, a home, friendly neighbours, and grandchildren. Some - hopefully enough, though probably just barely enough - money  as well. Some genuine warmth from people dear to us, comfort and time in our old age. These two didn't have it when they were poor. I hope they, but would not be surprised if they didn't, find it now. Be nice to try, though, wouldn't it?

Israel and Palestine: who's for peace?

Israeli 'extremists' (note, not 'terrorists') have been blamed for the murder of a Palestinian child. The Prime Minister of Israel said said there will be "zero tolerance" toward such Israeli 'terrorism' (that is, 'extremism').

We know what Palestinians are angry about in this conflict: their expulsion from their homes, the theft of their land through expanding settlements, living in prison camps, an economic blockade against them, segregation, no freedom of movement, living behind a security wall (also a theft of their land), being denied their own state, poverty, humiliation, hopelessness, being at the mercy of a hostile military against which they are wildly overmatched, the destruction of their homes as punishment for relative's crimes - compare the life and life-style of the average Israeli citizen with that of the average Gaza citizen and guess which one is harder and which one is easier and better off. By miles.

But what is Israel angry about? Security? They get billions in military aid from the U.S.; the Palestinians have no Air Force, no navy, hardly even an army, more a small group of armed men, no national status, no legal weight (the US veto can be counted on at the UN), and presents no economic competition to Israel. Think of the last invasion. What was it, 2,000 Palestinian dead versus 70 Israelis, most of whom we soldiers killed in the invasion itself? More Americans are killed by other American in Chicago in two months than Israelis are killed by Palestinians in a year.

That is why I think it is time to say it out loud, this thing that has finally gone out into the open with Israel saying it does not want a two state solution, that is to say, that Israel does not want peace. The status quo works for Israel quite nicely. There is no incentive for them to change anything. Israel gets to take over Palestinian land as the mood suits them, they are under no real military threat as can be seen by the devastation of Gaza by the IDF, they get billions in aid from the U.S. (what happens to that money if there is a resolution of the conflict?), the Israeli economic, territorial, military, political and logistical dominance of the region goes on unchallenged, and Israeli politicians and Prime Ministers have a trump card to play every election: the Palestinians. Resolve the Palestinian issues and Benjamin Netanyahu is judged on economic policy, social justice, the environment, minority rights, the status of women, education policy, democracy, likability - he, like all Israeli PMs, is in power because of the crisis. He needs that card to play, over and over, or how does he stay in power? Even Winston Churchill, who won the Second World War, lost the post-war peacetime election.

If Palestine becomes a state, it gets to have an army and airforce. Any settlements or a blockade become acts of war, and any war becomes not a matter of firing missiles into a basically undefended refugee camp, but army against army, air power against air power, tank against tank - a much less favourable war. We can see what the Palestinians have to gain by peace: nationhood, and end to the blockade, self-respect, a chance at an economy, security from Israeli raids, international recognition, the ability to travel, a shot, theoretically, at a middle class life lived among buildings that are buildings and not rubble. But where is Israel's incentive for peace? Peace with the Palestinians can only lessen Israel's economic and military and political power. It can only makes things harder for Israeli politicians.

Peace with the Palestinians would come close to removing the reason for Israel. If the Jewish people are not continually under threat from someone, then what's the point of Israel? Without war or the threat of war, without persecution or the language of persecution, the country's entire history, politics, self-image and status as a powerful symbol of humanity and innocence slips. Could Israel survive a peace? Yes. But could it flourish in a peace? Yes, perhaps, probably. But not the way it is now, not the way it has become accustomed to. Not the way that has worked so well so far.

Until A White Man Has A Problem

The tendency armed white people (like the police) have shown recently towards killing unarmed black people in America has put me in mind of Canada's native people. The problems, troubles, crises, injustices and apathy the First Nations are subjected to regularly turn up on mainstream (read: white) news, and yet are never actually addressed by government. For generations.

The reason is obvious. A problem isn't a problem until a white man has it. Aboriginal Canadians are not a significant financial or voting base, so until the problems of the native community matter to non-native voters or backers, no politician has to campaign on them. Should non-native (mostly white) voters ever say to politicians vying for power, "look, this shit has got to stop. You better fix it because poverty, suicide, disease, and injustice are just not fucking acceptable in this country," things might change. Until aboriginal issues start to matter to non-aboriginals, nothing is likely to change.

In South Africa's apartheid age, sanctions worked because they meant whites pressured the government - a government that was elected by them and dependant on them - for change, because they couldn't do business. It was costing white South Africans, establishment South Africans, money and inconvenience - in other words, the problems of nonwhites (powerless and poor) in S.A. became a problem for whites (privileged and not poor) in S.A. That's my theory, at least.

How does a mistreated group: black, female, native, French speaking, Spanish speaking, immigrant, poor, make progress on a grievance? Perhaps when their problems become problems for the empowered groups. Through violence? Maybe selectively, but embrace mass violence and it becomes easy for them. The answer to violence is violence, and you know who wins that.

Social action leads to politics, but politics is where the bottleneck is. How many policies that large majorities in the country support and want have no chance of ever happening? Many, very many.

George Bernard Shaw said that as long as we have prison cells it matters little which one of us sits in them. The question is how do you get people who don't experience poverty to see poverty as a problem. Or people who don't experience racism, or may benefit from racism, to see racism as real. Change requires a critical mass of people - but not necessarily a majority. If the persecuted and the poor where not so powerless they would not be so persecuted and poor, and if the were not so persecuted and poor they would not be so powerless.

The system is self-perpetuating, and that is also it's weakness, because entropy applies to everything and there is no such thing as a perpetual motion machine. Every civilization eventually winds down and our civilization will inevitably be replaced by something we cannot now imagine. What we do now, be it clean energy, peacemaking, environmentalism, equal rights, or justice in the system, we hope influences that change. Let us hope for a soft landing, a positive change - from the Middle Ages to the Renaissance, not from Rome to the Dark Ages. But you never know.

Too Good At Democracy?

It's been said before that perhaps wanting to be a political leader should disqualify you from ever actually being one. That's because your wanting power over me makes me that much more suspicious of you in the first place. Who does power attract, and what does power do to them when they get it? The cliche that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely assumes that those who attain power weren't already corrupt. That being corrupt, morally, intellectually, or financially, isn't how you get power in the first place.

The problem is that the worse you would be at governing, the better you can be at getting elected.

What do we do when the people who do politics for a living get so good at it that it renders the democracy non-functional? Political professionals know our psychology, they know how our brains work, they know marketing, hell, they know what colour tie to wear to make us trust them more than the other guy. They know how to poll to get the result they want, how to work within laws to slant courts, influence voter turn out, and gerrymander districts. They target so specific a demographic that they know what word to repeat to get the emotional reaction they want.

Face it, the game is so well played by the players, that we, the voters, are at the disadvantage. The point of manipulation is that if it is working on you, you don't know it.

In professional hockey the goaltenders are now so good at stopping the puck, are so hard to beat, that the league may make the nets bigger to give the shooters more of a chance. The players are so good at what they do you have to change the rules to make to make it a meaningful contest. Something worth cheering for rather than tuning out.

Sports leagues seem able to find neutral referees and umpires to call their games - you don't get to umpire a Yankees' game if you work for the Yankees, even if they are paying you through a third party fake Society for the Betterment of the Red Sox charity front. Fans can stop watching, but voters need to vote, because somebody is going to form government. It's just that it will either be with or without your voice.

I can't out spend the a billionaire on campaign ads, but for all his or her money he or she only gets one vote. The rest of us out number them and can out vote them, but only if we don't let them buy our votes. Only if we don't respond just to ads, stop being emotional voters, vote with our head as much as our gut, support independent media, participate not just in protests, but in the process, think critically about our own culture about what we're told, pause and count to ten before casting that vote, and God's sake, don't base it on what colour a candidate's tie is.

Sex, Gender, and Jenner

I am not a doctor but I do play one in my imagination and in my imagination people are just people, rather than being assigned a gender at birth. People are not heterosexual or homosexual, just sexual. You may choose to tell me who you're dating now, but why tell me what type of person you are committed to dating the rest of your life? It's not that your orientation will or should change, but who you may sleep with ten years from now is not relevant ("Will you go out with me?" Yes because I'm a man or no because I'm not tall enough?).

I'm not advocating bisexuality. You can still like who you like - only woman, only men - but don't need to identify with that as a campaign, a cause, a flag to fight under. I am a man married to a woman, but that is a description of my current life, it needn't be turned into an ism.

Being circumcised (male or female) to fit into your cultural box is bad enough, but having yourself surgically and chemically altered to fit into the cultural box of 'womanhood' or 'manhood' is a lot to go through. Why can't a person have a penis and just be a person with a penis - not 'male' or 'female'? Why require surgery to be one thing or another, when we can let anyone dress, date, or be treated as they wish, out of the respect accorded all humans. Perhaps rather than changing a body to fit our social conception, we could change society's categorizing of male and female into just people, with their own selves and interests and ways of living. Maybe a penis is a differently shaped clitoris.

I know that evolution, which undergirds everything, requires we be split into groups of with-penises and with-vaginas and that that ends the discussion, but there will always be reproduction - that's not going away. What, though, if I had to get to know some people before I could tell if they had a vagina or not? Would I find myself liking someone who turned out to have a penis? Would I be waylaid into gay sex?

How would society function if we couldn't automatically tell who had a penis and who didn't? It couldn't, so this is not a serious suggestion. For all I know someone who identifies as a woman (itself a social construct) while living in a 'male' body very much wants a clitoris. But if we could take the socially constructed elements out of people's identities - gender, sexuality, race - could we ever just see a person as a person who has a body, is dating a person, who dresses a way.

What if we just had people, without short-hand categories of gender or sexuality or marketing, and let people sort everything else out one on one? I know - it'd be inefficient, and nothing is worse than inefficiency, not even suffering - but a man can have sex with only women without identifying as heterosexual, but just sexual. No matter what you may think, and no matter who you are sleeping with now, you don't know who you'll be attracted to ten years from now, if the situation and the options are different (prison?).

If you're in a good relationship now, be glad that you are, and if you are not, be hopeful that you will be soon. If you have in mind the kind of person you want to be with, that's fine. But do we need to categorize gender more emphatically than we may someone having a job, or height, or age limits, or the kind of accent you find sexy? All of which are also preferences. Is someone in Toronto who is only interested in someone who lives in the same city, a Toronto-sexual? Why then with gender? Why must you must be a gender not just have sex. You must be a man in a man's body or a woman in a man's body - those are your options. Yes or no. Up or down. In or out. On or off. No continuum. No recognition that your state is 'at the moment' - you just choose a forever side and go though massive reconstruction and trauma should you choose to switch.

Think of Caitlyn Jenner. If a 65 year old man thinks she'd be happier as a 35 year old woman, who am I to disagree? But the point is she switched sides. You still have to be one or the other - the idea of the surgery is to be all one or all the other. Race, nationality, gender, sexuality or caste - it's never enough to be a person, we need to know what type of person you are.

Politics, Terrorism, War, and OurTroops

So, do you support the troops? Does anyone know what that means?

I don't see how I can say war is wrong in principle, but support each war that came along in practice. The life of one of our soldiers must be worth more than the life of one of their soldiers, right? How else can we have any wars at all? I don't want any Canadian soldiers to die, but I don't want any enemy soldiers to die either. I don't really want anyone to die. There is bravery on both sides of a fire fight, otherwise it wouldn't be a fight

Joining the military means agreeing to bomb whatever country the politician who happens to be Prime Minister (probably with thirty-six per cent of the vote) says to. Remember when we didn't trust or respect politicians?

It is hard for me to get past the fact that war is the justification of killing, is saying, “It is okay to kill these people. Do as much of it as you can.” If that is what 'supporting the troops' means, can  I oppose what is being done while supporting those who do it?

If we show we value democracy and tolerance by shooting the enemy in the face at every opportunity, we can also show it by questioning the idea of war and the justness of politicians. Democracy is defended more by exercising dissent here than by bombing anyone an ocean away.

Is it really less practical to look for peaceful ways to resolve problems than it was to spend 18 billion dollars sending troops half a world away for eleven years? We know what we are willing to sacrifice to fight wars, what are we willing to sacrifice to not have wars? War is never the last resort because you always had the option of sacrificing the thing the war is fought for.

The problem with fighting a war on terrorism is that war is terrorism, just seen from our side. The opposite of terrorism is not a drone strike, the opposite of terrorism is the same as the opposite of war, that is, diplomacy.

If we keep ISIS from forming a state - and states are things you can do diplomacy with, they have borders and economies and governments and interests - and just kill large numbers of them, how do we cope with what emerges from that war, which will be...another war. A war we will fight by bombing and they will fight by encouraging attacks domestically.

At what point does this end? When we stop bombing them in their countries and when criminal attacks in our countries are dealt with as criminal attacks. Ending the Baader-Mienhof terrorists in Germany or the Red Brigade terrorists in Italy did not necessitate the bombing of anyone (least of all Germany and Italy).

Denying ISIS a state will not end terrorism. Nothing will end terrorism, the way nothing ends murder. We just live with the risk of it, have laws against it, put people in jail for it, try to build good citizens who don't want to do it. What makes us think we can eliminate terrorism if we can't eliminate murder? Murder doesn't stop us from living our lives, exercising our freedoms, and ensuring due process, nor should it. Should anything?