Tuesday, October 20, 2009

Guest Author


THE ABSURD TIMES





The following article is written by a one-time editor of the Absurd Times. He manages to illustrate the previous article, much much more vividly:

ON WOMEN.

These few words of Jouy, _Sans les femmes le commencement de notre vie

seroit privé de secours, le milieu de plaisirs et la fin de

consolation_, more exactly express, in my opinion, the true praise of

woman than Schiller's poem, _Würde der Frauen_, which is the fruit of

much careful thought and impressive because of its antithesis and use of

contrast. The same thing is more pathetically expressed by Byron in

_Sardanapalus_, Act i, Sc. 2:--

"The very first

Of human life must spring from woman's breast,

Your first small words are taught you from her lips,

Your first tears quench'd by her, and your last sighs

Too often breathed out in a woman's hearing,

When men have shrunk from the ignoble care

Of watching the last hour of him who led them."

Both passages show the right point of view for the appreciation of

women.

One need only look at a woman's shape to discover that she is not

intended for either too much mental or too much physical work. She pays

the debt of life not by what she does but by what she suffers--by the

pains of child-bearing, care for the child, and by subjection to man, to

whom she should be a patient and cheerful companion. The greatest

sorrows and joys or great exhibition of strength are not assigned to

her; her life should flow more quietly, more gently, and less

obtrusively than man's, without her being essentially happier or

unhappier.

* * * * *

Women are directly adapted to act as the nurses and educators of our

early childhood, for the simple reason that they themselves are

childish, foolish, and short-sighted--in a word, are big children all

their lives, something intermediate between the child and the man, who

is a man in the strict sense of the word. Consider how a young girl will

toy day after day with a child, dance with it and sing to it; and then

consider what a man, with the very best intentions in the world, could

do in her place.

* * * * *

With girls, Nature has had in view what is called in a dramatic sense a

"striking effect," for she endows them for a few years with a richness

of beauty and a, fulness of charm at the expense of the rest of their

lives; so that they may during these years ensnare the fantasy of a man

to such a degree as to make him rush into taking the honourable care of

them, in some kind of form, for a lifetime--a step which would not

seem sufficiently justified if he only considered the matter.

Accordingly, Nature has furnished woman, as she has the rest of her

creatures, with the weapons and implements necessary for the protection

of her existence and for just the length of time that they will be of

service to her; so that Nature has proceeded here with her usual

economy. Just as the female ant after coition loses her wings, which

then become superfluous, nay, dangerous for breeding purposes, so for

the most part does a woman lose her beauty after giving birth to one or

two children; and probably for the same reasons.

Then again we find that young girls in their hearts regard their

domestic or other affairs as secondary things, if not as a mere jest.

Love, conquests, and all that these include, such as dressing, dancing,

and so on, they give their serious attention.

* * * * *

The nobler and more perfect a thing is, the later and slower is it in

reaching maturity. Man reaches the maturity of his reasoning and mental

faculties scarcely before he is eight-and-twenty; woman when she is

eighteen; but hers is reason of very narrow limitations. This is why

women remain children all their lives, for they always see only what is

near at hand, cling to the present, take the appearance of a thing for

reality, and prefer trifling matters to the most important. It is by

virtue of man's reasoning powers that he does not live in the present

only, like the brute, but observes and ponders over the past and future;

and from this spring discretion, care, and that anxiety which we so

frequently notice in people. The advantages, as well as the

disadvantages, that this entails, make woman, in consequence of her

weaker reasoning powers, less of a partaker in them. Moreover, she is

intellectually short-sighted, for although her intuitive understanding

quickly perceives what is near to her, on the other hand her circle of

vision is limited and does not embrace anything that is remote; hence

everything that is absent or past, or in the future, affects women in a

less degree than men. This is why they have greater inclination for

extravagance, which sometimes borders on madness. Women in their hearts

think that men are intended to earn money so that they may spend it, if

possible during their husband's lifetime, but at any rate after his

death.

As soon as he has given them his earnings on which to keep house they

are strengthened in this belief. Although all this entails many

disadvantages, yet it has this advantage--that a woman lives more in the

present than a man, and that she enjoys it more keenly if it is at all

bearable. This is the origin of that cheerfulness which is peculiar to

woman and makes her fit to divert man, and in case of need, to console

him when he is weighed down by cares. To consult women in matters of

difficulty, as the Germans used to do in old times, is by no means a

matter to be overlooked; for their way of grasping a thing is quite

different from ours, chiefly because they like the shortest way to the

point, and usually keep their attention fixed upon what lies nearest;

while we, as a rule, see beyond it, for the simple reason that it lies

under our nose; it then becomes necessary for us to be brought back to

the thing in order to obtain a near and simple view. This is why women

are more sober in their judgment than we, and why they see nothing more

in things than is really there; while we, if our passions are roused,

slightly exaggerate or add to our imagination.

It is because women's reasoning powers are weaker that they show more

sympathy for the unfortunate than men, and consequently take a kindlier

interest in them. On the other hand, women are inferior to men in

matters of justice, honesty, and conscientiousness. Again, because their

reasoning faculty is weak, things clearly visible and real, and

belonging to the present, exercise a power over them which is rarely

counteracted by abstract thoughts, fixed maxims, or firm resolutions, in

general, by regard for the past and future or by consideration for what

is absent and remote. Accordingly they have the first and principal

qualities of virtue, but they lack the secondary qualities which are

often a necessary instrument in developing it. Women may be compared in

this respect to an organism that has a liver but no gall-bladder.[9] So

that it will be found that the fundamental fault in the character of

women is that they have no "_sense of justice_." This arises from their

deficiency in the power of reasoning already referred to, and

reflection, but is also partly due to the fact that Nature has not

destined them, as the weaker sex, to be dependent on strength but on

cunning; this is why they are instinctively crafty, and have an

ineradicable tendency to lie. For as lions are furnished with claws and

teeth, elephants with tusks, boars with fangs, bulls with horns, and the

cuttlefish with its dark, inky fluid, so Nature has provided woman for

her protection and defence with the faculty of dissimulation, and all

the power which Nature has given to man in the form of bodily strength

and reason has been conferred on woman in this form. Hence,

dissimulation is innate in woman and almost as characteristic of the

very stupid as of the clever. Accordingly, it is as natural for women to

dissemble at every opportunity as it is for those animals to turn to

their weapons when they are attacked; and they feel in doing so that in

a certain measure they are only making use of their rights. Therefore a

woman who is perfectly truthful and does not dissemble is perhaps an

impossibility. This is why they see through dissimulation in others so

easily; therefore it is not advisable to attempt it with them. From the

fundamental defect that has been stated, and all that it involves,

spring falseness, faithlessness, treachery, ungratefulness, and so on.

In a court of justice women are more often found guilty of perjury than

men. It is indeed to be generally questioned whether they should be

allowed to take an oath at all. From time to time there are repeated

cases everywhere of ladies, who want for nothing, secretly pocketing and

taking away things from shop counters.

* * * * *

Nature has made it the calling of the young, strong, and handsome men to

look after the propagation of the human race; so that the species may

not degenerate. This is the firm will of Nature, and it finds its

expression in the passions of women. This law surpasses all others in

both age and power. Woe then to the man who sets up rights and interests

in such a way as to make them stand in the way of it; for whatever he

may do or say, they will, at the first significant onset, be

unmercifully annihilated. For the secret, unformulated, nay, unconscious

but innate moral of woman is: _We are justified in deceiving those who,

because they care a little for us_,--_that is to say for the

individual_,--_imagine they have obtained rights over the species. The

constitution, and consequently the welfare of the species, have been put

into our hands and entrusted to our care through the medium of the next

generation which proceeds from us; let us fulfil our duties

conscientiously_.

But women are by no means conscious of this leading principle _in

abstracto_, they are only conscious of it _in concreto_, and have no

other way of expressing it than in the manner in which they act when the

opportunity arrives. So that their conscience does not trouble them so

much as we imagine, for in the darkest depths of their hearts they are

conscious that in violating their duty towards the individual they have

all the better fulfilled it towards the species, whose claim upon them

is infinitely greater. (A fuller explanation of this matter may be found

in vol. ii., ch. 44, in my chief work, _Die Welt als Wille und

Vorstellung_.)

Because women in truth exist entirely for the propagation of the race,

and their destiny ends here, they live more for the species than for the

individual, and in their hearts take the affairs of the species more

seriously than those of the individual. This gives to their whole being

and character a certain frivolousness, and altogether a certain tendency

which is fundamentally different from that of man; and this it is which

develops that discord in married life which is so prevalent and almost

the normal state.

It is natural for a feeling of mere indifference to exist between men,

but between women it is actual enmity. This is due perhaps to the fact

that _odium figulinum_ in the case of men, is limited to their everyday

affairs, but with women embraces the whole sex; since they have only one

kind of business. Even when they meet in the street, they look at each

other like Guelphs and Ghibellines. And it is quite evident when two

women first make each other's acquaintance that they exhibit more

constraint and dissimulation than two men placed in similar

circumstances. This is why an exchange of compliments between two women

is much more ridiculous than between two men. Further, while a man will,

as a rule, address others, even those inferior to himself, with a

certain feeling of consideration and humanity, it is unbearable to see

how proudly and disdainfully a lady of rank will, for the most part,

behave towards one who is in a lower rank (not employed in her service)

when she speaks to her. This may be because differences of rank are much

more precarious with women than with us, and consequently more quickly

change their line of conduct and elevate them, or because while a

hundred things must be weighed in our case, there is only one to be

weighed in theirs, namely, with which man they have found favour; and

again, because of the one-sided nature of their vocation they stand in

closer relationship to each other than men do; and so it is they try to

render prominent the differences of rank.

* * * * *

It is only the man whose intellect is clouded by his sexual instinct

that could give that stunted, narrow-shouldered, broad-hipped, and

short-legged race the name of _the fair sex_; for the entire beauty of

the sex is based on this instinct. One would be more justified in

calling them the _unaesthetic sex_ than the beautiful. Neither for

music, nor for poetry, nor for fine art have they any real or true sense

and susceptibility, and it is mere mockery on their part, in their

desire to please, if they affect any such thing.

This makes them incapable of taking a purely objective interest in

anything, and the reason for it is, I fancy, as follows. A man strives

to get _direct_ mastery over things either by understanding them or by

compulsion. But a woman is always and everywhere driven to _indirect_

mastery, namely through a man; all her _direct_ mastery being limited to

him alone. Therefore it lies in woman's nature to look upon everything

only as a means for winning man, and her interest in anything else is

always a simulated one, a mere roundabout way to gain her ends,

consisting of coquetry and pretence. Hence Rousseau said, _Les femmes,

en général, n'aiment aucun art, ne se connoissent à aucun et n'ont aucun

génie_ (Lettre à d'Alembert, note xx.). Every one who can see through a

sham must have found this to be the case. One need only watch the way

they behave at a concert, the opera, or the play; the childish

simplicity, for instance, with which they keep on chattering during the

finest passages in the greatest masterpieces. If it is true that the

Greeks forbade women to go to the play, they acted in a right way; for

they would at any rate be able to hear something. In our day it would be

more appropriate to substitute _taceat mulier in theatro_ for _taceat

mulier in ecclesia_; and this might perhaps be put up in big letters on

the curtain.

Nothing different can be expected of women if it is borne in mind that

the most eminent of the whole sex have never accomplished anything in

the fine arts that is really great, genuine, and original, or given to

the world any kind of work of permanent value. This is most striking in

regard to painting, the technique of which is as much within their reach

as within ours; this is why they pursue it so industriously. Still, they

have not a single great painting to show, for the simple reason that

they lack that objectivity of mind which is precisely what is so

directly necessary in painting. They always stick to what is subjective.

For this reason, ordinary women have no susceptibility for painting at

all: for _natura non facet saltum_. And Huarte, in his book which has

been famous for three hundred years, _Examen de ingenios para las

scienzias_, contends that women do not possess the higher capacities.

Individual and partial exceptions do not alter the matter; women are and

remain, taken altogether, the most thorough and incurable philistines;

and because of the extremely absurd arrangement which allows them to

share the position and title of their husbands they are a constant

stimulus to his _ignoble_ ambitions. And further, it is because they are

philistines that modern society, to which they give the tone and where

they have sway, has become corrupted. As regards their position, one

should be guided by Napoleon's maxim, _Les femmes n'ont pas de rang_;

and regarding them in other things, Chamfort says very truly: _Elles

sont faites pour commercer avec nos faiblesses avec notre folie, mais

non avec notre raison. Il existe entre elles et les hommes des

sympathies d'épiderme et très-peu de sympathies d'esprit d'âme et de

caractère_. They are the _sexus sequior_, the second sex in every

respect, therefore their weaknesses should be spared, but to treat women

with extreme reverence is ridiculous, and lowers us in their own eyes.

When nature divided the human race into two parts, she did not cut it

exactly through the middle! The difference between the positive and

negative poles, according to polarity, is not merely qualitative but

also quantitative. And it was in this light that the ancients and people

of the East regarded woman; they recognised her true position better

than we, with our old French ideas of gallantry and absurd veneration,

that highest product of Christian-Teutonic stupidity. These ideas have

only served to make them arrogant and imperious, to such an extent as to

remind one at times of the holy apes in Benares, who, in the

consciousness of their holiness and inviolability, think they can do

anything and everything they please.

In the West, the woman, that is to say the "lady," finds herself in a

_fausse position_; for woman, rightly named by the ancients _sexus

sequior_, is by no means fit to be the object of our honour and

veneration, or to hold her head higher than man and to have the same

rights as he. The consequences of this _fausse position_ are

sufficiently clear. Accordingly, it would be a very desirable thing if

this Number Two of the human race in Europe were assigned her natural

position, and the lady-grievance got rid of, which is not only ridiculed

by the whole of Asia, but would have been equally ridiculed by Greece

and Rome. The result of this would be that the condition of our social,

civil, and political affairs would be incalculably improved. The Salic

law would be unnecessary; it would be a superfluous truism. The European

lady, strictly speaking, is a creature who should not exist at all; but

there ought to be housekeepers, and young girls who hope to become such;

and they should be brought up not to be arrogant, but to be domesticated

and submissive. It is exactly because there are _ladies_ in Europe that

women of a lower standing, that is to say, the greater majority of the

sex, are much more unhappy than they are in the East. Even Lord Byron

says (_Letters and Papers_, by Thomas Moore, vol. ii. p. 399), _Thought

of the state of women under the ancient Greeks--convenient enough.

Present state, a remnant of the barbarism of the chivalric and feudal

ages--artificial and unnatural. They ought to mind home--and be well fed

and clothed--but not mixed in society. Well educated, too, in

religion--but to read neither poetry nor politics--nothing but books of

piety and cookery. Music--drawing--dancing--also a little gardening and

ploughing now and then. I have seen them mending the roads in Epirus

with good success. Why not, as well as hay-making and milking_?

* * * * *

In our part of the world, where monogamy is in force, to marry means to

halve one's rights and to double one's duties. When the laws granted

woman the same rights as man, they should also have given her a

masculine power of reason. On the contrary, just as the privileges and

honours which the laws decree to women surpass what Nature has meted out

to them, so is there a proportional decrease in the number of women who

really share these privileges; therefore the remainder are deprived of

their natural rights in so far as the others have been given more than

Nature accords.

For the unnatural position of privilege which the institution of

monogamy, and the laws of marriage which accompany it, assign to the

woman, whereby she is regarded throughout as a full equivalent of the

man, which she is not by any means, cause intelligent and prudent men to

reflect a great deal before they make so great a sacrifice and consent

to so unfair an arrangement. Therefore, whilst among polygamous nations

every woman finds maintenance, where monogamy exists the number of

married women is limited, and a countless number of women who are

without support remain over; those in the upper classes vegetate as

useless old maids, those in the lower are reduced to very hard work of a

distasteful nature, or become prostitutes, and lead a life which is as

joyless as it is void of honour. But under such circumstances they

become a necessity to the masculine sex; so that their position is

openly recognised as a special means for protecting from seduction those

other women favoured by fate either to have found husbands, or who hope

to find them. In London alone there are 80,000 prostitutes. Then what

are these women who have come too quickly to this most terrible end but

human sacrifices on the altar of monogamy? The women here referred to

and who are placed in this wretched position are the inevitable

counterbalance to the European lady, with her pretensions and arrogance.

Hence polygamy is a real benefit to the female sex, taking it _as a

whole_. And, on the other hand, there is no reason why a man whose wife

suffers from chronic illness, or remains barren, or has gradually become

too old for him, should not take a second. Many people become converts

to Mormonism for the precise reasons that they condemn the unnatural

institution of monogamy. The conferring of unnatural rights upon women

has imposed unnatural duties upon them, the violation of which, however,

makes them unhappy. For example, many a man thinks marriage unadvisable

as far as his social standing and monetary position are concerned,

unless he contracts a brilliant match. He will then wish to win a woman

of his own choice under different conditions, namely, under those which

will render safe her future and that of her children. Be the conditions

ever so just, reasonable, and adequate, and she consents by giving up

those undue privileges which marriage, as the basis of civil society,

alone can bestow, she must to a certain extent lose her honour and lead

a life of loneliness; since human nature makes us dependent on the

opinion of others in a way that is completely out of proportion to its

value. While, if the woman does not consent, she runs the risk of being

compelled to marry a man she dislikes, or of shrivelling up into an old

maid; for the time allotted to her to find a home is very short. In view

of this side of the institution of monogamy, Thomasius's profoundly

learned treatise, _de Concubinatu_, is well worth reading, for it shows

that, among all nations, and in all ages, down to the Lutheran

Reformation, concubinage was allowed, nay, that it was an institution,

in a certain measure even recognised by law and associated with no

dishonour. And it held this position until the Lutheran Reformation,

when it was recognised as another means for justifying the marriage of

the clergy; whereupon the Catholic party did not dare to remain

behindhand in the matter.

It is useless to argue about polygamy, it must be taken as a fact

existing everywhere, the _mere regulation_ of which is the problem to be

solved. Where are there, then, any real monogamists? We all live, at any

rate for a time, and the majority of us always, in polygamy.

Consequently, as each man needs many women, nothing is more just than to

let him, nay, make it incumbent upon him to provide for many women. By

this means woman will be brought back to her proper and natural place as

a subordinate being, and _the lady_, that monster of European

civilisation and Christian-Teutonic stupidity, with her ridiculous claim

to respect and veneration, will no longer exist; there will still be

_women_, but no _unhappy women_, of whom Europe is at present full. The

Mormons' standpoint is right.

* * * * *

In India no woman is ever independent, but each one stands under the

control of her father or her husband, or brother or son, in accordance

with the law of Manu.

It is certainly a revolting idea that widows should sacrifice themselves

on their husband's dead body; but it is also revolting that the money

which the husband has earned by working diligently for all his life, in

the hope that he was working for his children, should be wasted on her

paramours. _Medium tenuere beati_. The first love of a mother, as that

of animals and men, is purely _instinctive_, and consequently ceases

when the child is no longer physically helpless. After that, the first

love should be reinstated by a love based on habit and reason; but this

often does not appear, especially where the mother has not loved the

father. The love of a father for his children is of a different nature

and more sincere; it is founded on a recognition of his own inner self

in the child, and is therefore metaphysical in its origin.

In almost every nation, both of the new and old world, and even among

the Hottentots, property is inherited by the male descendants alone; it

is only in Europe that one has departed from this. That the property

which men have with difficulty acquired by long-continued struggling and

hard work should afterwards come into the hands of women, who, in their

want of reason, either squander it within a short time or otherwise

waste it, is an injustice as great as it is common, and it should be

prevented by limiting the right of women to inherit. It seems to me that

it would be a better arrangement if women, be they widows or daughters,

only inherited the money for life secured by mortgage, but not the

property itself or the capital, unless there lacked male descendants. It

is men who make the money, and not women; therefore women are neither

justified in having unconditional possession of it nor capable of

administrating it. Women should never have the free disposition of

wealth, strictly so-called, which they may inherit, such as capital,

houses, and estates. They need a guardian always; therefore they should

not have the guardianship of their children under any circumstances

whatever. The vanity of women, even if it should not be greater than

that of men, has this evil in it, that it is directed on material

things--that is to say, on their personal beauty and then on tinsel,

pomp, and show. This is why they are in their right element in society.

This it is which makes them inclined to be _extravagant_, especially

since they possess little reasoning power. Accordingly, an ancient

writer says, [Greek: Gunae to synolon esti dapanaeron physei].[10] Men's

vanity, on the other hand, is often directed on non-material advantages,

such as intellect, learning, courage, and the like. Aristotle explains

in the _Politics_[11] the great disadvantages which the Spartans brought

upon themselves by granting too much to their women, by allowing them

the right of inheritance and dowry, and a great amount of freedom; and

how this contributed greatly to the fall of Sparta. May it not be that

the influence of women in France, which has been increasing since Louis

XIII.'s time, was to blame for that gradual corruption of the court and

government which led to the first Revolution, of which all subsequent

disturbances have been the result? In any case, the false position of

the female sex, so conspicuously exposed by the existence of the "lady,"

is a fundamental defect in our social condition, and this defect,

proceeding from the very heart of it, must extend its harmful influence

in every direction. That woman is by nature intended to obey is shown by

the fact that every woman who is placed in the unnatural position of

absolute independence at once attaches herself to some kind of man, by

whom she is controlled and governed; this is because she requires a

master. If she, is young, the man is a lover; if she is old, a priest.

Women and the Senate


THE ABSURD TIMES




One of you sent this in. It is just one more defining issue on what it means to be a Republican. I will follow it (since we might as well do this right) with a famous essay "On Women" that at least shows no one has really evolved in the last 200 years or so. The links are worth following as well.

Here it is:

The gang rape and the Republicans

Behold, 30 U.S. senators who don't give a damn about battered women

Friday, October 16, 2009

The world's tallest domestic dog? Adorable. The world's biggest newborn baby? Sad and disturbing.

Waterless urinals in every new building in Los Angeles? A positive step. Canada's disgusting oilsands and Coal Country, a new documentary detailing the environmental atrocities in Appalachia? Heart wrenching and depressing.

Jimmy Page showing Jack White and the Edge how to play "When the Levee Breaks" in It Might Get Loud? All flavors of awesome. Garth Brooks coming out of retirement? Anesthetizing.

See, it's all a matter of perspective. It's all a matter of context and spin, into which bin we toss the delightful refuse of our culture to recycle and re-use it another day.

It is with this wonky filter in mind we turn our gaze to the gaping hellmouth that is the U.S. Senate, that drab cauldron of grumpy old men, defeminized women and tiny handful of rebellious dissenters, all of whom claim to have your best interests at heart but mostly only really give a damn about which lobbyist will help them best make their next boat payment.

Do I sound a little bitter? I cannot imagine why. Let us watch the senate and see if we can figure it out.

Look at them shuffle and sneer, hem and haw! Watch as they willingly eat their own souls with an ice pick and some turpentine, then step up to the media microphones and try to sound ennobled and magnanimous when in fact they only make everyone within earshot feel lost and fatalistic. So cute.

It's the same old spectacle, isn't it? There they go, tossing around the health care reform issue like it didn't affect millions of humans every single day, throwing in massive compromises and snags just so the GOP can fellate its pals in the insurance industry and a gaggle of aggrieved Democrats can get their egos fluffed and you still won't be able to get a decent dental plan for your family.

But now, just for fun, let's take it a step further. Or rather, darker. Let's go ahead and step right onto one of those large, rusty nails sticking up from the senate floor, so painful as to make your stomach turn, a bit of your lunch jump back into your throat.

It's a story from the dark political underbelly that makes you question the entire setup, rethink humanity, and lean out your window and scream: what the hell is wrong with these people? Who are they, really? Why do we give them power?

Here is freshman Minnesota senator Al Franken's first-ever legislative action, a relatively simple, almost laughably surefire bill requiring the Pentagon no longer do business with any contractor -- hi, Halliburton! -- that requires its employees to agree that she cannot sue said contractor if she is, oh let's just say, gang raped by its employees.

You read that right. It's a can't-sue-us-if-you're-raped clause. In a U.S. government contract. Aimed squarely at Halliburton. Thanks, Dick Cheney!

First, you are required to get over your initial disgust that such legislation is even necessary, that such clauses even exist and that the Pentagon is already doing business with such contractors (hi, Halliburton/KBR!), and that there has already been a truly horrible case validating it, wherein a 20-year-old female employee was allegedly gang-raped by contractors, locked in a shipping container, abused every way from Sunday, and found out later she was unable to sue.

Let us pause to imagine if, say, Wal-Mart had such a clause. Or maybe Toys 'R' Us. Starbucks. Let us imagine the appalled outcry. But Halliburton? Dick Cheney's vile little spitwad of shameless war profiteering? No problem. Hey, it's Republican-endorsed military contracting. No one said it was ethical.

But that's not most the repellant part. Ready?

The most repellant part is the 30 U.S. senators -- Republicans each and every one -- who just stepped forth to vote against the Franken amendment, essentially saying no, women should have no right to sue if they are sexually abused or gang raped, Halliburton and its ilk must be protected at all costs, and by the way we hereby welcome Satan into our rancid souls forevermore. God bless America.

Let us repeat, for clarity. Franken's amendment passed with a vote of 68-30. Meaning 30 U.S. senators voted against the elimination of the rape/sue clause. Meghan McCain, call your dad. He's one of them.

Here is where you try and do it. Here is where you bring in the filter mentioned above, try to figure out where to slot such wretched information, how to make even the slightest sense of it.

And then you discover a horrible truth: you can't. Turns out, when faced with such vileness, all filters fail. All balance is thrown off. You thought you had some sort of way to process and attain perspective? You are proven wrong.

So perhaps all we can do is ponder how pathetic and sad these various senator's lives must be, how these bitter old men will now go home at night and announce around the dinner table that, yes, today they worked very hard to help improve the welfare of the nation by essentially enabling rape and sexual abuse, tried their darndest to prevent women who've been viciously attacked from having much legal recourse. And lo, Satan will chuckle happily.

Then maybe these senators will try and hug their wives, or their daughters. And maybe, if there's any justice in the universe, their wives and daughters will slap them as hard as humanly possible, lock them in a shipping container, and never let them touch them again.

P.S.; Would you like a complete list of these 30 senators' names? Right here.

Why look, there's grandpa McCain. There's disgraced man-child John Ensign. Hooker-lovin' David Vitter. Saxby Chambliss. Inhofe. It's a veritable welfare-state who's who of Dick Cheney's sanctum of oily fluffers, and many more who would love to be. Shall we write a nice letter to them? Or maybe their wives and daughters?


Mark Morford

Mark Morford's column appears every Wednesday and Friday on SFGate. Contact him here. To get on the notification list for this column, click here and remove one article of clothing. To get on Mark's personal mailing list (appearances, books, blogs, yoga and more), click here and remove three more. His website is right here.

Mark's also on Facebook and Twitter because, well, why the hell not?

This column also has an RSS feed and a very handy archive page.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2009/10/16/notes101609.DTL


Monday, October 12, 2009

There goes the planet -- Oh Shit

THE ABSURD TIMES



Just recently it was made shockingly clear to me how much denial persists as to climate deterioration. As I write this in below freezing early October, fresh from seeing the Major League Baseball elimination series canceled due to snow and then played the next day in 29 degree weather, I just received a forwarded letter written by someone who once showed signs of literacy and common sense calling the whole ecology movement akin to the Nazi Party.

Personally, I don't give a damn, as I mentioned before, as I will die within a decade or so anyway, but deliberate idiocy has a way of irritating me. The fact that I don't give a damn just proves what Bernard Shaw said in his Back to Methuselah about the life span of the human race being too short as most leaders do not live long enough to face the consequences of their actions. It may be one reason that younger people usually favor more liberal causes, on the whole, than older ones.

At any rate, at the same time, this article from the Nation appeared in my mailbox. I thought I'd pass it on:



Climate Roulette

Comment

By Mark Hertsgaard

This article appeared in the October 26, 2009 edition of The Nation.

October 7, 2009


They say that everyone who finally gets it about climate change has an "Oh, shit" moment--an instant when the full scientific implications become clear and they suddenly realize what a horrifically dangerous situation humanity has created for itself. Listening to the speeches, groundbreaking in their way, that President Obama and Chinese President Hu Jintao delivered September 22 at the UN Summit on Climate Change, I was reminded of my most recent "Oh, shit" moment.

It came in July, courtesy of the chief climate adviser to the German government. Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, chair of an advisory council known by its German acronym, WBGU, is a physicist whose specialty, fittingly, is chaos theory. Speaking to an invitation-only conference at New Mexico's Santa Fe Institute, Schellnhuber divulged the findings of a study so new he had not yet briefed Chancellor Angela Merkel about it. The study has now been published. If its conclusions are correct--and Schellnhuber ranks among the world's half-dozen most eminent climate scientists--it has monumental implications for the pivotal meeting in December in Copenhagen, where world leaders will try to agree on reversing global warming.

Schellnhuber and his WBGU colleagues go a giant step beyond the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the UN body whose scientific reports are constrained because the world's governments must approve their contents. The IPCC says that rich industrial countries must cut emissions 25 to 40 percent by 2020 (from 1990 levels) if the world is to have a fair chance of avoiding catastrophic climate change. By contrast, the WBGU study says the United States must cut emissions 100 percent by 2020--i.e., quit carbon entirely within ten years. Germany, Italy and other industrial nations must do the same by 2025 to 2030. China only has until 2035, and the world as a whole must be carbon-free by 2050. The study adds that big polluters can delay their day of reckoning by "buying" emissions rights from developing countries, a step the study estimates would extend some countries' deadlines by a decade or so.

Needless to say, this timetable is light-years more demanding than what the world's major governments are talking about in the run-up to Copenhagen. The European Union has pledged 20 percent reductions by 2020, which it will increase to 30 percent if others--like the United States--do the same. Japan's new prime minister likewise has promised 25 percent reductions by 2020 if others do the same. Obama didn't mention a number, but the Waxman-Markey bill, which he supports, would deliver less than 5 percent reductions by 2020. Obama's silence--doubtless a function of the fact that Republicans are implacably opposed to serious emissions cuts--allowed Hu to claim the higher ground at the UN. Hu went further than any Chinese leader has before, pledging to curb greenhouse gas emissions growth by a "notable margin" by 2020. Obama dropped his own bombshell, however, urging that all G-20 governments phase out subsidies for fossil fuels. "The time we have to reverse this tide is running out," Obama declared. Alas, the WBGU study suggests that our time is in fact all but gone.

Obama, like other G-8 leaders, agreed in July to limit the global temperature rise to 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above the preindustrial level at which human civilization developed. Schellnhuber, addressing the Santa Fe conference, joked that the G-8 leaders had agreed to the 2C limit "probably because they don't know what it means." In fact, even the "brutal" timeline of the WBGU study, Schellnhuber cautioned, would not guarantee staying within the 2C target. It would merely give humanity a two-out-of-three chance of doing so--"worse odds than Russian roulette," he wryly noted. "But it is the best we can do." To have a three-out-of-four chance, countries would have to quit carbon even sooner. Likewise, we could decide to wait another decade or so to halt all greenhouse emissions, but this lowers the odds of hitting the 2C target to fifty-fifty. "And what kind of precautionary principle is that?" Schellnhuber asked.

There is a fundamental political assumption underlying the WBGU study: that the right to emit greenhouse gases is shared equally by all people on earth. Known in diplomatic circles as "the per capita principle," this approach has long been insisted upon by China and most other developing countries and thus is seen as essential to an agreement in Copenhagen, though among G-8 leaders only Merkel has endorsed it. The WBGU study applies the per capita principle to the world population of 7 billion people and arrives at an annual emissions quota of 2.7 tons of carbon dioxide per person. That's harsh news for Americans, who emit 20 tons per person annually, and it explains why the US deadline is the most imminent. But China won't welcome this news either. Its combination of high annual emissions and huge population gives it a deadline only a few years later than Europe's and Japan's.

"I myself was terrified when I saw these numbers," Schellnhuber said. He urges governments to agree in Copenhagen to launch "a Green Apollo Project." Like John Kennedy's pledge to land a man on the moon in ten years, a global Green Apollo Project would aim to put leading economies on a trajectory of zero carbon emissions within ten years. Combined with carbon trading with low-emissions countries, Schellnhuber says, such a "wartime mobilization" might still save us from the worst impacts of climate change. The alternative is more and more "Oh, shit" moments for all of us.

About Mark Hertsgaard

Mark Hertsgaard (markhertsgaard.com), a fellow of The Nation Institute and The Nation's environment correspondent, is the author of five books, which have been translated into sixteen languages. His next book, Living Through the Storm: How We Survive the Next 50 Years of Climate Change, is forthcoming from Houghton-Mifflin. more...
Advertisement

Friday, October 09, 2009

Nobel Peace Prize??!!

THE ABSURD TIMES



Photo: Edward Said (sigh eed) -- more about him below.

As soon as I heard the news that our President, Barak Obama, was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, my first reaction was "Damn, there go my chances." I never do well with committees, anyway. People in Game Theory know that the best and the worst never have a change with a committee decision. Well, except perhaps this time.

In 1938, the committee was divided between Adolph Hitler and Ghandi for the prize. Instead, it was given to a group that helped refugees.

Meanwhile, there is other stuff going on. One is the UN report by a South African Jew. It is highly critical of Israel and thus he becomes a "self-hating Jew," and joins Noam Chomsky and Norm Finklestein in that category. I must confess that I have not read the report myself. I wanted to, but it is about 6 Megabytes of PDF to download, but here is the link for you:
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/specialsession/9/docs/UNFFMGC_Report.pdf
You can decide for yourself. These things are never made available.

There was a discussion of it, however, on Democracy Now. Some of you may remember Edward Said, author of Orientalism, and Palestinian. He was a Professor at Columbia University and could play Beethoven's Sonatas on the concert pianist level (well, better than some). He was close friends with Daniel Barenboim, a musical genius, to further harmony and understanding between Palestinian and Israeli youth, especially. Edward Said, therefore, was attacked repeatedly by the likes of Derschowitz, but Columbia endowed a chair in his honor. The interview below is with his successor as Said (Sigh eed) died of cancer a few years ago.

One last note, Edward Said believed in a one state solution, as does Kaddafi. This, of course, would force a separation of church and state, an insalubrious notion smacking of democracy.

Oh yes, another photo of Said with some politician:



Guest:

Rashid Khalidi, Edward Said Professor of Modern Arab Studies at Columbia University. He is the author of several books, including Sowing Crisis: American Dominance and the Cold War in the Middle East and The Iron Cage: The Story of the Palestinian Struggle for Statehood.

Rush Transcript

This transcript is available free of charge. However, donations help us provide closed captioning for the deaf and hard of hearing on our TV broadcast. Thank you for your generous contribution.
Donate - $25, $50, $100, More...

JUAN GONZALEZ: The Security Council has rejected Libya’s request to hold an emergency session on South African Judge Richard Goldstone’s recently released report on Israel’s three-week war on Gaza last winter. Instead, the Council has agreed to advance a regular meeting to address the issues it raises.

The 575-page report by the United Nations fact-finding mission accuses Israel of war crimes and deliberately targeting civilians in Gaza. It also accuses Hamas of indiscriminate rocket fire. The report urges that the UN Security Council refer allegations to the International Criminal Court if either side fails to investigate and prosecute suspects. Some 1,400 Palestinians and thirteen Israelis were killed during the war on Gaza.

Meanwhile, outrage among Palestinians continues to rise over Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas’s decision to withdraw support for further action in regard to the Goldstone investigation. Last week, Abbas backed the postponement of a vote by the Human Rights Council to send the report to the Security Council for possible action. The decision reportedly came after heavy American and Israeli pressure.

This is Gaza resident Najma Abbas.

    NAJMA ABBAS: [translated] We have rights, and we demand to have them, despite those who disagree. The European countries agreed and were willing to sign on. How is it possible that our own flesh and blood refused?


JUAN GONZALEZ: Bill Van Esveld of Human Rights Watch criticized the Obama administration’s actions regarding the Goldstone report.

    BILL VAN ESVELD: Due to American pressure, strong pressure from Washington, the Palestinians have withdrawn their request that the UN act on the Goldstone report. What the US has effectively done is sent a strong signal that Israel doesn’t need to investigate itself, because that was the recommendation of the Goldstone report.


JUAN GONZALEZ: After six days of protests, a senior Abbas adviser told the Voice of Palestine radio Wednesday that, quote, “What happened is a mistake, but (it) can be repaired.”

Well, for more on the report and the Palestinian Authority’s decision, I’m joined now here in the firehouse studio by Palestinian historian Rashid Khalidi. He is the Edward Said Professor of Modern Arab Studies at Columbia University and the author of several books, including Sowing Crisis: American Dominance and the Cold War in the Middle East and The Iron Cage: The Story of the Palestinian Struggle for Statehood.

Welcome to Democracy Now!

RASHID KHALIDI: Thank you, Juan.

JUAN GONZALEZ: Well, the reaction over the past week in the Palestinian—in the Occupied Territories, as well as in the Middle East in general? Have you seen anything like this in the past in regard to the Palestinian Authority leadership?

RASHID KHALIDI: I actually haven’t. This is unprecedented. You have a wide range of calls, not only condemning what Mahmoud Abbas, Abu Mazen, did in instructing his representatives in Geneva to call for postponement of consideration of the Goldstone report, but we’re now hearing calls for the President’s resignation. These are not just coming from Hamas or the usual quarters. They seem to be coming from a very broad range of civil society groups, even members of the President’s own political party, Fatah.

JUAN GONZALEZ: And in terms of the prospects of that happening—I mean, obviously, in Gaza there have been posters up now—

RASHID KHALIDI: Right.

JUAN GONZALEZ: —in the streets in recent days calling Mahmoud Abbas a traitor. But the prospects of any change in leadership, from your perspective?

RASHID KHALIDI: Well, I think he’s definitely been weakened by this. There’s no question that Israel and the United States twisted their pliable client, if you want to call him that, much more than they had any reason to, in terms of what the traffic would bear, what his popularity and his legitimacy, which were very, very limited to begin with, would sustain. And the backlash has really been quite ferocious. I can’t remember seeing anything like this. I think he’s wounded. I think he’s quite severely wounded.

Whether it will lead to a change or not, I don’t know. This comes at a time when there are efforts to bring about another reconciliation meeting between Fatah and Hamas, and it’s hard to say how this might play into it. There are a number of Arab countries that seem to be pushing hard in that direction. His being weakened in this circumstance may have an effect on that.

JUAN GONZALEZ: Well, the report itself was rejected by Israel and was criticized by US officials. But what specifically did it recommend?

RASHID KHALIDI: It simply recommended that both the Palestinian Authority and Israel investigate the allegations that the Goldstone committee looked at: allegations of war crimes, allegations, in some cases, of crimes against humanity, by Israel, primarily, but also by Hamas. So it simply called for these two sides to investigate and then for the Human Rights Council in Geneva to refer the results of that, if needed, to the Security Council.

JUAN GONZALEZ: Now the Palestinian Authority—at least in the last day or so, a couple of spokespeople have said that “this was a mistake, we’re reconsidering it.” But what do you expect will happen at the Security Council now?

RASHID KHALIDI: Well, I don’t expect very much to happen in the Security Council, frankly. It’s now been postponed to a regular meeting of the Security Council, which was scheduled to discuss the Middle East and which has, I guess, been moved up ’til next week—to next week, so it will be brought before the council presumably next week. I don’t see the United States changing its position of 360-degree support for Israel.

The problem here is that they are losing their ally in Ramallah, and they’re acceding to having it even considered yesterday by the council. And considering moving up the meeting, I think, is a recognition of the fact that they’ve already done themselves some harm in Washington.

The interesting things are happening in Palestine now, I think. I think that the idea that a Palestinian leader would prevent an international body from even considering a report, which condemns both Hamas, but primarily Israel, is horrific to most Palestinians and most people in the Arab world. The satellite TV stations are focusing on this to a very high degree, and the outrage is really quite palpable, and from one end of the spectrum to the other.

JUAN GONZALEZ: And, of course, this all comes as the US envoy George Mitchell is preparing for—will be arriving in the Middle East again—

RASHID KHALIDI: Yet again.

JUAN GONZALEZ: —yet again—

RASHID KHALIDI: Yet again.

JUAN GONZALEZ: —to attempt another round of negotiations for a peace settlement. Your sense of how this will affect the ability of the Palestinian Authority to have any leverage in those discussions?

RASHID KHALIDI: Well, the Israelis have delivered yet another slap in the face to Senator Mitchell and to the Obama administration. This has been their habit for decades. Every time an American envoy comes, a new settlement is opened or some outrageous statement is made.

The Israeli foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman, has basically said, “There’s not going to be a deal. There won’t be peace with the Palestinians. We just have to manage this conflict,” and something along those lines, in effect saying there’s no point.

So I think that you have an Israeli government that seems to be hardening its position, and in particular with the actions that the government is taking in Jerusalem, where there’s a very high level of tension over subterranean excavations by the Israeli Antiquities Authority, which is increasingly being infiltrated by extremist settler groups, where there have been home demolitions and expulsions of people from their homes and expansion of new settlements. The Israelis are, in effect, staking a very tough position out, ahead of any talks that Mitchell might be able to start.

JUAN GONZALEZ: And how do you expect Mitchell to function in light of the fact that the—at least Mahmoud Abbas and the Palestinian Authority have made it clear—

RASHID KHALIDI: Right.

JUAN GONZALEZ: —precondition of real negotiations is a halt to the settlement expansions?

RASHID KHALIDI: Well, they’ve announced a number of measures involving new tenders for housing and settlements, new building in Jerusalem, which the Netanyahu government says is excluded from any ban even if there were to be one, such that the question now will be, who is going to back down? Will Mahmoud Abbas, who’s, as I think everybody agrees, been significantly weakened by his own mistakes in this Goldstone matter—is he going to be able to back down further on this issue and say, “Sure, we’ll talk with you about dividing the pie, while you continue to eat it up”? He’s in a much, much, much more difficult position. Will the Obama administration continue to back down in the face of Israeli intransigence? I don’t know.

JUAN GONZALEZ: There have also been some reports in the Arab press of some—pointing to a possible corruption situation with Mahmoud Abbas’s son and a cell phone company that—

RASHID KHALIDI: Yeah.

JUAN GONZALEZ: Could you talk about that?

RASHID KHALIDI: Sure. One element of the blackmail, which reportedly has been exercised by the Israelis on the Palestinian Authority in order to persuade them not to go forward with consideration of the Goldstone report in Geneva, was a denial of the granting of a license to a second Palestinian cell phone company in the Occupied Territories.

The situation now is that there’s one Palestinian company, not allowed to build cell phone towers in over 60 percent of the West Bank, and a [inaudible], four or five, I think, or six Israeli companies, which build, all over the West Bank, cell phone towers. And so, you basically can’t get decent reception. What the Palestinian Authority had been asking for was to have the right to build in occupied Palestine another set of cell phone towers, so that, A, there could be competition, and B, there could be better coverage.

Now, the corruption angle has to do with the apparent fact that Mahmoud Abbas’s son is involved with that second company. The bigger issue, of course, is the Israelis denying this extension of cell bandwidth and denial of permission to build, and thereby strangling the Palestinian economy. Cell phones are really crucial, given the fragmentation of territory caused by the way the occupation functions in the West Bank.

JUAN GONZALEZ: Well, Rashid Khalidi, professor of modern Arab studies at Columbia University, I want to thank you for being with us.

RASHID KHALIDI: Thanks, Juan.

JUAN GONZALEZ: And we’ll be continuing to cover this story in the future.



Creative Commons License The original content of this program is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. Please attribute legal copies of this work to democracynow.org. Some of the work(s) that this program incorporates, however, may be separately licensed. For further information or additional permissions, contact us.


Wednesday, October 07, 2009

A War of Absurdity

This just happened as I was about to write something on the subject. Perfect:

A War of Absurdity

TruthDig

By Robert Scheer

October 7, 2009


THE ABSURD TIMES



Robert Scheer is the editor of Truthdig, where this article originally appeared. His latest book is The Pornography of Power: How Defense Hawks Hijacked 9/11 and Weakened America (Twelve).




US Marines walk inside their base before patrolling near town of Khan Neshin in Rig district of Helmand province Reuters Photos<br/>

Reuters Photos

US Marines walk inside their base before patrolling near town of Khan Neshin in Rig district of Helmand province

Every once in a while, a statistic just jumps out at you in a way that makes everything else you hear on a subject seem beside the point, if not downright absurd. That was my reaction to the recent statement of the president's national security adviser, former Marine Gen. James Jones, concerning the size of the terrorist threat from Afghanistan:

» More

"The Al Qaeda presence is very diminished. The maximum estimate is less than 100 operating in the country, no bases, no ability to launch attacks on either us or our allies."

Less than 100! And he is basing his conservative estimate on the best intelligence data available to our government. That means that Al Qaeda, for all practical purposes, does not exist in Afghanistan--so why are we having a big debate about sending even more troops to fight an enemy that has relocated elsewhere? Because of the blind belief, in the minds of those like John McCain, determined to "win" in Afghanistan, that if we don't escalate, Al Qaeda will inevitably come back.

Why? It's not like Al Qaeda is an evil weed indigenous to Afghanistan and dependent on its climate and soil for survival. Its members were foreign imports in the first place, recruited by our CIA to fight the Soviets because there were evidently not enough locals to do the job. After all, US officials first forged the alliance between the foreign fighters and the Afghan mujahedeen, who morphed into the Taliban, and we should not be surprised that that tenuous alliance ended. The Taliban and other insurgents are preoccupied with the future of Afghanistan, while the Arab fighters couldn't care less and have moved on to more hospitable climes.

There is no indication that any of the contending forces in Afghanistan, including the Taliban, are interested in bringing Al Qaeda back. On the contrary, all the available evidence indicates that the Arab fighters are unwelcome and that it is their isolation from their former patrons that has led to their demise.

As such, while one wishes that the Afghan people would put their houses in order, these are not, even after eight long years of occupation, our houses. Sure, there are all sorts of angry people in Afghanistan, eager to pick fights with each other and most of all any foreigners who seem to be threatening their way of life, but why should that any longer have anything to do with us?

Even in neighboring Pakistan, the remnants of Al Qaeda are barely hanging on. As the Wall Street Journal reported Tuesday, "Hunted by US drones, beset by money problems and finding it tougher to lure young Arabs to the bleak mountains of Pakistan, Al Qaeda is seeing its role shrink there and in Afghanistan, according to intelligence reports and Pakistan and US officials..... For Arab youths who are al Qaeda's primary recruits, 'it's not romantic to be cold and hungry and hiding,' said a senior US official in South Asia."

It's time to declare victory and begin to get out rather than descend deeper into an intractable civil war that we neither comprehend nor in the end will care much about. Terrorists of various stripes will still exist as they have throughout history, but the ones we are most concerned about have proved mighty capable of relocating to less hostile environments, including sunny San Diego and southern Florida, where the 9/11 hijackers had no trouble fitting in.

There is a continued need for effective international police work to thwart the efforts of a widely dispersed Al Qaeda network, but putting resources into that effort does not satisfy the need of the military establishment for a conventional field of battle. That is the significance of Gen. Stanley McChrystal's leaked report calling for a massive counterinsurgency campaign to make everything right about life in Afghanistan, down to the governance of the most forlorn village. The general's report aims not at eliminating Al Qaeda, which he concedes is barely existent in the country, but rather at creating an Afghan society that is more to his own liking.

It is a prescription, as the Russians and others before them learned, for war without end. That might satisfy the marketing needs of the defense industry and the career hopes of select military and political aspirants, but it has nothing to do with fighting terrorism. In the end, it would seem that some of our leaders need the Afghanistan battleground more than the terrorists do.

About Robert Scheer

Robert Scheer, a contributing editor to The Nation, is editor of Truthdig.com and author of The Pornography of Power: How Defense Hawks Hijacked 9/11 and Weakened America (Twelve) and Playing President (Akashic Books). He is author, with Christopher Scheer and Lakshmi Chaudhry, of The Five Biggest Lies Bush Told Us About Iraq (Akashic Books and Seven Stories Press.) His weekly column, distributed by Creators Syndicate, appears in the San Francisco Chronicle. more...
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

Blogs

» Act Now!

End the War | Barbara Lee's alternative to a surge in Afghanistan is gaining traction fast.
Peter Rothberg
Posted at 2:10 PM ET

» The Beat

But How Does the GOP Win With 1 Percent of the Vote? | Michelle Bachmann wants the GOP to rebuild itself by focusing on the "critical mass" of Glenn Beck viewers.
John Nichols
35 Comments
Posted at 12:31 ET

» The Dreyfuss Report

Will Obama Cave to McChrystal? | A decision is expected in weeks, but it's starting to look like Obama isn't ready to slap down his COIN-crazy generals.
Robert Dreyfuss
23 Comments
Posted at 10:10 ET

» Editor's Cut

It's About the People | As we face the prospects of a jobless recovery, The Nation will continue to push proposals to promote a people's recovery.
Katrina vanden Heuvel
100 Comments

» The Notion

Greece Votes Socialist | Against the European grain, Greece's socialist PaSoK party has won a landslide victory.
Maria Margaronis
26 Comments

» Altercation

Slacker Friday | Charles Pierce: Let me apologize to Congressman Alan Grayson on behalf of all decent journalists everywhere.
Eric Alterman

  • Copyright © 2009 The Nation

Friday, October 02, 2009

Gaddaffi -- TOO FAR OUT




THE ABSURD TIMES:
TOO FAR OUT


I'm including the lllustration I wanted to use last time.

To tell you the truth, he is so far out that I'm not sure that even I fully understand him, but I'm doing my best here.

Let's start with his speech that left the western media terminally puzzled and angry, but they really didn't know why they were angry except that it was a long speech with no break for commercial interruptions, Reagen said he was a bad guy and bombed him, killing his daughter and perhaps other children, and he let the tribe of the convicted Lockerbie bomber be greeted by his family and tribe and gave him a traditional getting himself. Other than that, they understand very little, but they really don't feel comfortable with him.

The speech was essentially about the United Nations itself. The Preamble is fine, he says, but the articles of incorporation make it clumbsy and onerous. Actually, he is not alone in this. For different reasons, one of George Bush's appointee's felt that the top 10 floors should be bombed. Yet Georgie put him there as our ambassador. The general consensus about him was that he was insane, but not dangerous. That was John Boulton.

He then talks to the General Assembly about that other part of the UN, the Security Council. He pointed out that the entire operation was designed in reaction to Germany (he didn't seem to think Japan had much to do with it since we nuked it) and is essentally a Western European organization. It's structure is out of date for today's situations. [It might be added that the five nations with the veto power once included Taiwan, of all places.]

Many leaders had difficulty getting there. One co-pilot could not get a Visa, the doctor for another leader could not get a visa, etc. We complain that we have such a burden in hosting these nations and who knows where a terrorist could be, eh?

There have been votes of about 188 for and 2 against on certain resolutions. Since the states were the United States and Israel, the resolution failed.

He decided the hell with the nuclear weapon. So we took him off our "terrorist" list. Seriously, if he had one, what would he do with it? Israel said it feared an attack. Does anyone really think he is that stupid? Or that Israel is really in such danger with a mere 200 to 300 nuclear weapons or bombs to use in retaliation? He figured he didn't need it.

Well, Gadaffi suggests that the entire General Assembly say "Thank you," very politely to the United States, "we appreciate your sacrifice and hospitality, and so on," and then move to a time zone closer to GMT, Switzerland, for example, or why not Malta?

He is not that popular with many Arab Countries either. He walked out of a meeting of the Arab League considering them just talkers and went to work trying to organize with Africa instead. During the reign of Bush I, I asked a leading Arab Ambassador what he thought of him. He said, "We wish the U.S. would stop paying so much attention to him."

Then it hit me. Gadaffi just freaks out uptight western Republican types. On top of it, he doesn't wear a tie! Add the tent bit and it's ballistic time.

People get upset at the tent. What's with the tent? What the hell difference does it make? He likes tents. He has his own security or bodyguards -- all women, highly skilled in martial arts. I've seen them and can assure you that it would not be wise to mess with them. He is an equal opportunity employer and feminist.

People think he is still running Lybia. He really isn't. He only leads the revolution. He set up this system of committees and councils and, frankly, they are not very unified on anything. This has been the case since about 1980.

People wonder why he is only a Colonel. Well, he could have made himself a general any time he wanted, but why bother? He's leading a revolution. His GREEN BOOK reads very much like something by the Fabian Society written by H.G. Wells, Sidney Webb, or Bernard Shaw.

Oh yes, what about Bin Laden. Well, he says, Al Quada is in New York, not Pakistan. And it wasn't Bin Laden who flew an airplane into a building in New York. Frankly, why pay him so much attention? Get on with your life.

Well, I can't think of any other things about him that puzzle people, so I'll end here.

Saturday, September 26, 2009

Gaddafi the Cool


THE ABSURD TIMES



In case you wonder how to spell his name, or transliterate it, above is the banner for his website.




And this is a full-sized photo of him with a bunch of things pinned on his shirt. Well, actually that photo got lost, so here is one of him making his speech.

Now, after a long time of just hearing crazy stuff from our right wing loonies, we actually are hearing alot of pertainant information from the leaders of the world as the United Nations begins. The first thing to do is to get to the website from the UN and download the speeches along with translation. You have to use Realplayer to do it -- I guess they supply the stream or format free for them. You can down Realplayer and, I think, the free version will let you download the speeches.

Next, catch Gaddafi on CNN at 12 CDT for an hour interview with Fareed Za(and whatever). He's a pretty good interviewer and certainly knowledgable. Ahmedinejad was on CNN with Larry King and drove him nuts. King tried to confront him on the holocause and he instead started asking King questions. We would have seen a live heart-attack ahd King not been able to run to a commercial every 2 minutes. Maybe it will be re-run.

After that, we can really talk about what has been happening. Morales said he wouldn't talk as long as Gaddafi as he "said it all" and then applauded. What bothers western media was 1) the speech lasted 90 minutes and 2) there were no breaks for commercials. Additionally, since he had never addressed the General Assembly, he went back to the UN establishment and discussed its history and shortcomings. He said it was time to just thank the US for all its trouble and move the entire thing to another continent. Additionally, most of what he said was factually accurate.

Normally, he looks as if he is on hash, but this time he didn't. However, there were additional interviews lately where he is is old self. Anyway, we'll catch up on all this, but I wanted to let you know first about the material.

The next post should contain some links. Nah, why not have them here?

UN: http://www.un.org/ga/

You can find CNN yourselves.

On the UN: Right above the "present Speaker" are the archives. Khaddafi was on day one (1) as was Ahmedinejad. Morales on the second day. You can check them out and then download the ones you want. There are plenty of conversion programs as "Freeware" what you can use if you prefer another format. The typescript of the speech should also be available, but it is in PDF. I hate PDF. Who likes it? Also, conversion to ascii programs available as freeware.

Later we can talk about the UN and the salient points made.