Spineless

Listening to the congress finesse this Syria Non-Policy in a way as not to break with their parties and yet not infuriate their constituency, which rightly don’t understand what the President is trying to accomplish with 90 days of military involvement on disclosed targets, is beyond maddening and a little surreal.  Nice to see the democrats try to eat their war and have it too for a refreshing change...  

Middle East Fatigue

Though what prompted me to start this so-called blog was the entrance of Sarah Palin into the national political arena, it’s been a while since I’ve ranted and raved about political issues.  Not because there hasn’t been a mountain of things to rant and rave about since; but because I ceased to derive pleasure from doing so.  This “Syria thing” however has stirred my bile some, and I find myself screaming at the radio, and at the TV, and at my mother when she says, “You have to do something against this monster.”  Frankly, I have Middle East fatigue.

Whether we have to do something or not, very much depends on what our goal is.  And though no politician ever states it, whenever we get embroiled in that Middle Eastern viper’s nest (which is always) it is primarily to keep the export of oil flowing smoothly.  Any humanitarian aspect to our involvement is incidental and secondary; even though, as Americans, we want to believe that it is primary. 

Stated or not, and although the goal of keeping oil flowing smoothly sounds straightforward enough, choosing the right game to play (using human lives) to keep it that way, in an enormous and diverse region full of warring factions and tribes functioning with a Middle Ages mentality (and I don’t exclude Israel from the bunch as long as they have Hassidim dictating their land policy), is all but impossible.  That, Mr. President, is why you should keep your big mouth shut, and try to refrain from aggrandizing yourself until you actually use, for perhaps the first time ever, your brain to think about the consequences of your un-tele-prompted words.

Over the past many days, I’ve heard a lot of theories about why we have to get involved once more in what has become an even more complicated game than it ever was.  Yesterday, I heard a guy tell me (on the radio) that if we had attacked Saddam Hussein in the 80’s, when he did indeed use chemical weapons against the Iranians and against the Kurds (and against whomever he wanted to), the landscape would be much different today.  No shit Sherlock, but different how?   We did eventually get tired of Saddam for straying from behavior that used to serve our purposes; and we did invade, though too late according to yesterday’s report.  But who’s to say what difference it would have made had we attacked early; plus in the eighties, he was serving our purposes of balancing the power in the region by keeping Iran at bay. 

The wishful thinking behind our recent invasion of Iraq was way more complicated than slapping Saddam on the hand, like we did the first time around in the 90's at the tune of $60 billion, and like Obama wants to ineffectually do to Assad.  It was overtly about regime change.  I’m not sure what the Bush Administration advisers were snorting at the time, but the thinking was that we would present, as in the verb “gift”, democracy to a country which, because of its relatively stable economy and educated populace, would embrace it with open arms.  Once the Iraqis tasted the freedom that comes with western style democracy, said democracy would spread over the entire Middle East; we would disengage militarily, sing Kumbaya together, have a meeting of the hearts and minds, and oil would with gusto ejaculate from the ground and flow freely our way forever after….    

Despite what they were snorting (and I must have picked up on their fumes because I bought what they were selling at the time- a mistake I will not be making again), you gotta hand it to Bush’s advisors; the invasion of Iraq and the toppling of Saddam did indeed prompt people all over the Middle East to develop a taste for “democracy”, and to rebel and depose their dictators in what the media have dubbed as the “Arab Spring”.  Though if April showers bring May flowers, I’ve yet to see them.  And relations between the West and the Middle East continue to be as circuitous as ever, if not more.  Enter the Syria problem.

The best analysis I heard was from a guy at the ChristianScience Monitor reminding those who might forget that Syria is being propped up by Iran.  Any war we start in Syria will be a proxy war with Iran (our “real” “enemy” from way back when Saddam used to be our foil against them); which is what McCain and his cronies are hoping for.  McCain and Co. must be snorting some of the left over Bush administration shit.   Even if they actually believe in democracy for the people of Syria, did the short lived experiment with democracy in Egypt (like Syria, a relatively developed country that, by all western logic, should have been able to put together a working democracy that was representative of all its people) not teach these clowns anything?!!!  We don’t even really know who these rebels are who plan to run the country once they hang Assad, and intelligence has it that they are riddled with Al-Qaeda.  How can getting embroiled in this mess sound like a good plan?   That must be some very good shit they are snorting in parts of Capitol Hill. 

The report from the Christian Science Monitor also points out that Iran is spread very thinly trying to support the Assad regime, and that this is becoming an “Iranian war”.  They are hoping Obama gets involved so it can become the “Obama War” and they can divest themselves from it a little in order to keep fomenting trouble elsewhere.  Letting Iran spread itself thin sounds like a great strategy to me. It is time we let those people deal with each other.  Yes, oil might sky-rocket for a while, and there will be hell to pay here if it does; it will probably make the recent recession look like child’s play.  But the status quo, that is, our starting wars with no goals or end, cannot hold.  The American people no longer support such action; like me, they seem fatigued.  Maybe we are stupid, but we are not seeing the benefits from the past 12 years of  military engagement.  And forget the costs of our big heavy duty engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan; look at what our “light support” in Libya wrought: can you say Benghazi?

So, Mr. President, before you start speaking without thinking again, and before you make this thing in Syria your legacy, stop and cogitate.  Find yourself a brilliant chess player, preferably one from the Middle East, to help you navigate through this troubled zone.  Lobbing a few missiles is simply not the answer; but, Mr. McCain, neither is Regime Change à la Americaine.   Mr. President, this is a lot more complicated than your little community organizing mind seems capable of working out, not to mention that We the Community are sick and tired of war. ...But as surely as I sit here typing, we are moving in that direction "one more again"... let the games continue.

you gotta luv 'em

Oh, what the hell, why be civilized, it's my blog.  Been hearing this news all day and just have to react:

You gotta fucking love Europeans.  Hezbollah kills Israelis for years and the Europeans call them a political party.  Then they start killing Syrians, and all of a sudden Europeans decide they are a terrorist group.

Hey Europe!

more test

test

devo-loped

It’s strange to be in my 50’s, having been a citizen of two very different countries, and watching both (and the world) change incrementally.  A friend told me we don’t get any wiser when we get older, just older.  I’m not so sure; I guess it depends on what one has in their head to begin with.  The thing I seem to be getting is a different perspective; it’s wider, if not wiser.

Today I heard in the news that a group called Summit just bought a mountain in Utah for what I thought was a very reasonable 40 million dollars.  $40,000,000 sounds cheap for a mountain.  Summit is a company that puts together invitation-only events for leaders in business, entertainment and philanthropy.  They seem to care about the communities, or at least pay lip service to caring about them, and probably even believe that the events they develop benefit the communities in which they insert themselves.  In buying this mountain to develop as a playground for “leaders”, they claim they will be developing it in such a way to benefit the (by choice) sleepy community around the mountain.  One of said sleepy community’s main concern happens to be that they do not want to be priced out of their community; and I am not sure how developing a mountain for the rich and famous fits in with such goal.  I’m sure the legislators and developers will figure something out short term; but from my perspective, the long term does not look promising for this community's "non-leaders".

I was only half listening to this news item as I woke up from a slumber in order to get on my bike for my morning ride.  But as I was biking through a beautiful and unusually cool pre-storm morning, its information kept resonating in my mind.  I thought about our shrinking world, and about free-floating capital, and about the country I was born in, and the one I currently live in; the former labeled these days as “developing” and the latter as “developed”. 

When I was young, what we now call developing nations  were known as “third world countries”, or worse, “banana republics”; one of their main characteristic, then and now, being the existence of a small privileged class and a huge underclass.  The world has changed some since then; communication is instantaneous and capital moves somewhat more freely, but the main structures seem to remain in place.

Americans are indoctrinated with the idea of progress from the moment they are born and throughout their schooling.  I was schooled in several American institutions, so I speak from experience.  We are schooled to believe that progress is inevitable, will mimic the very particular history of this country, and means that eventually there will be justice, political freedom and economic well-being for all.   I was taught to believe this mumbo-jumbo in school, all the while growing up under a dictatorship form of government.  Being young, I believed it.   

The dictatorship is gone in Brazil and now it is illegal not to vote (irony?).  And although there seems to be more money and opportunity, there remains a small privileged class, a merchant class, and a huge underclass.  And as I was biking today, I thought of Summit and the people they cater to; and I thought of the global nature of our world and of free-floating capital.  And as I thought of how the hopeful (and the young) like to see globalization as a vehicle of progress towards justice, and democracy, and economic security for all, I couldn't help but think that lately this here developed nation is looking a lot like the third world country I came from.  That maybe globalization does not mean that eventually all developing nations rise to meet a higher standard, but that some rise and others fall to meet a middling standard where there will always be a small (and in some cases deserving) privileged class, somewhat of a middle class, and a huge underclass. 

...But I am old; and 40 million still sounds damned cheap for a mountain.

Segurança Pública

The week has been filled with news about the “NSA eavesdropping”, though metadata collection is not quite the same thing as eaves- dropping.  This morning I half heard news on statistics about the demographic who cares and doesn't about this.  Apparently young people are non-plussed, while older ones seem to care more; whatever “care” might mean…  I guess I don’t fit any profile since I am older and could care less; though my good American husband tells me I should care a little.

I stopped even thinking about who had data about me when 20 years ago I tried to apply for a JC Penney card in order to get some discount or another, and was told that the social security number I gave them was different than what my credit report informed them it was.  I informed them that the computer was wrong.  I knew then that data about me, right or wrong, was electronically floating around the universe and paradigms had shifted, at least they had in “the free world”.

I’m not much for social media, since as it is, I waste enough time emailing and occasionally putting words on this here nowhere place whose bits and bytes are being "monitored" as I type (delicious).  But at one point in time, I did put my profile on LinkedIn, whose function in my life I am still unsure of; I probably don’t use it as I should.   I was job hunting and figured “why not?” 

As with any social media, being on LinkedIn means that one gets invited to “connect” with people.  If I know the person who "invites" me, I accept; and when I “accept”, LinkedIn automatically routes me to a page with several profiles it thinks I might want to invite to connect with me.  I've noticed that as time has progressed and I have accepted more and more invitations on LinkedIn, the page it sends me to in order to invite people to connect with me is starting to get crowded with people I've never met and who have very little in common with me.  Ok, the premise of social media seems to be that it is a forum where one connects with known people, as well as, a place to meet strangers and make new "friends"; but LinkedIn is not a social site, it is a professional one, and to link with people who don’t know me from Adam and with whom I have nothing in common makes no contextual sense to me.

This morning, when I accepted one more connection and was sent to my “invite” page, I noticed I knew no one on it.  For “fun”, I spent some time scrolling down and still did not find any familiar face.  Like I said, I see no reason to connect with strangers in industries I know nothing about in a professional site, but it got me thinking of the metadata the NSA has been warehousing.  Warehousing info and being able to use it effectively, much less nefariously, are two very different things.  My husband might be right that one political party or another could get hold of some piece of data in order to pull “a Nixon” or “an Obama” and use the information contained in it to benefit their own party somehow; but it seems to me that there are easier ways to be dirty.  Maybe it is a good thing that the fact of the surveillance has come to light; but as far as I’m concerned: File away. Paradigm shift or not, there is safety in numbers.…