Disengagement Gears

[A couple of folks started talking with me about the subject of my recent post. I feel bad posting my response without including theirs, but I didn't want to post without their direct permission (it's from another forum). That's why I didn't include their real names (except for those privy to that particular forum) so that they could be considered more flatly, from my point of view (it is my blog, after all). The gist is, both of them, while agreeing with certain elements of my argument, disagree, saying that there is still political power and capital found in supporting candidates' campaigns for other political ends, such as the environmental and labor movements. Which, I concede, is true. Political power works in strange ways. But, that doesn't include the actual voting, which my original argument was against. Here and how, however, I am responding to the assertion by [wellslin] that I have a " general attitude of disengagement from the political process".]

it begins...

[wellslin] My disengagement is from the federal executive branch election. While both you and [glynnsea] have made good arguments for there being political aspects to certain parts of the circus surrounding this sort of election, I don't think either of you would actually call the election political, or a political process. It sounds like you both are focused on strategies regarding "power", which, if I understand correctly, are not the same thing as "being" president.

It's sort of a pet peeve of mine that the reaction from a lot of people to my voicing my views is that I am "disengaged, disenchanted, or otherwise just sullen and upset." Not that you said all that, but... well, it's been typical. Nor that I'm not, in some degree. However, I feel as if, as a response, it shuffles my opinion off into a margin of "angry, do-nothing, and therefore, superlative." Maybe if somebody actually appealed to the "disengaged" demographic with something other than useless ideology and boring busy-work, we would be able to re-engage.

I don't want to bitch and moan about how real life isn't exciting or correct enough for me, and that I'm too good for it. That's not true. Actually, I am fully engaged in my own life, which contains various political aspects and various processes; some of them are close to blossoming into fruition, and others are much more long-term, and others no doubt will be abandoned as time and place sees fit. There are some parts of my life with which I'm disappointed, other parts for which I'm quite excited. Not everyone will agree that my life is political, but hey, everyone is fully able to have his/her own opinion on what politics are (I certainly do).

But this is the problem. Everyone knows that a problem with the American Left (whatever) is that when somebody disagrees with the Left, the disagreeing party is "wrong", and unprogressive. So, because I disagree with the Left's strategy of supporting presidential candidates, I must be wrong, unprogressive, and as [wellslin] said, "disengaged from the political process". No, I'm not disengaged from the political process, I'm disengaged from your political process (the particular facet of which includes supporting presidential candidates). I have my own political process, thank you very much, which certainly does NOT include voting for nor supporting any candidate, in any way. This doesn't mean that you shouldn't be doing what you're doing or anyone else shouldn't be doing what they are doing, but it means that I have decided that I am doing what I am doing, and this is not an apolitical, unpolitical, or illpolitical decision, but a political one. It is part of the political process of boycott. Whatever political effect it has, that is a separate discussion. But please don't marginalize my choice because you disagree with it (which, interestingly enough, is a primary tactic of those campaigning and supporting political candidates).

Let's not switch "power" for "politics", either. Politics wouldn't be political without the power. If the consolidation and implementation of power is what you are looking for, there are certainly many ways to do so. One way, literally, is to get the power company to supply power to your campaign office. You do this by paying a bill. This electricity enables you to do many things. This is why it is called power. I'm being facetious because these days many people like to argue about what politics "is all about". Politics is all about oil, or its all about ideology, or its all about money, or its all about water, etc. All of these things can be invested with a certain amount of power, and turn the switch on other power else where, and around and around and around. So you want "power". For good ends, obviously, I don't doubt it (not facetious this time). But if you really wanted to get a lot of power, you could just get a lot of money, which would act like a lot of power. Or, you can build a mass movement, and use the power of a lot of angry people. Or you could try and get the largest number of people who hold positions that give them a certain amount of power behind you, like "workers". Or, you could threaten to blow up all the power plants, which would give you a certain amount of power through fear. Whatever you are doing, you are implementing different strategies of getting power.

The differences between these strategies are what is typically called "politics". The difference between capitalism and populism and communism and terrorism is what sort of rules are agreed upon for the consolidation and use of power. They all share some similarities, and all have some differences. So, to say your politics is about power is kind of simple. There is more do it than that, and it is what you think is "ok to do in the pursuit of power". (There is necessarily more to an adequate definition of politics, namely something to do with the "people" in some way, but I'm going to avoid this for now, because it seems that both [wellslin] and [glynnsea] agree that they are after power.)

Clearly, both [wellslin] and [glynnsea] think that supporting presidential candidates, as part of a strategy for consolidating power, is a good idea. I don't. I am all about power, folks. I totally believe it exists, I think some people have too much of it and use it wrongly, and I think a lot of people need more of it and need to use it better. But I don't think that supporting presidential candidates is a good use of power, or that in doing so will result in any positive changes in the way that power is distributed or used. In fact, I worry about the opposite.

This is highly political decision on my part, and I resent any suggestion to the contrary. It is part of a highly-evolved and seriously considered strategy for changing the way power is distributed and used. It isn't synonymous with your strategy, but I don't expect it to be, as it is my own.

I'm not going to go into the details of my own strategies and tactics. (Part of it is super secret!) But part of it involves trying to draw general attention to the illogical and demeaning arguments that support certain elements of the current power structure. These include voting, the support for presidential candidates, and certain "political" factions' arguments that would subjugate and marginalize alternative political orientations to their own, namely, those political orientations that would decry the factions' own actions, including support for political candidates.

In other words, it is clear that by supporting a presidential candidate, you are forced to call my position wrong, apolitical, and disengaged. If my rejection of voting was to be a political opinion, it would draw attention to the bankruptcy of elements of your own political opinion. This is why non-voters never get to sit at debates. And I don't mean undecideds, I mean non-voters.

So, long story short, I don't hold it against you for marginalizing my position by saying that I'm "disengaged", because I think we all now might know what you really mean. But let it be known that I am far from disengaged.

Vote Not To Vote

My computer is broken so my posting is even less often than usual. Right now I am at the local branch of the Multnomah County Library, where I have 25 more minutes to use the internet. However, seeing as now the election race has begun, because now there are actual tangible machinations occurring rather than the boring and recycled rhetoric of campaigns, I thought I should give my usual spiel.

I DO NOT VOTE FOR PRESIDENT. This is a logical, political decision, and I feel that all of the people (being, the large majority of the population) who disagree with me should deeply consider their own choices in light of the logic that I have used to make my choice. In other words, I'm right, you're wrong, and everyone should listen to me.

HERE'S THE DEAL:

I disagree with large aspects of Slavoji Zizek's philosophy for deep, critical and academic reasons that are boring to anyone who doesn't read 20th Century Continental philosophy or Leftist psychoanalysis for fun. However, an analogy that he used to describe America's justification of the Iraq War is quite apt, amusing (as much as such a subject could be), and quite applicable to other situations of similar lapses of logic in favor of ideology. It is called, "The Story of the Borrowed Kettle." It is a joke, which I will paraphrase here:

A man goes to see his neighbor, bringing with him his kettle, now broken, which the neighbor has just finished borrowing. When he confronts the neighbor, the neighbor rebuffs him, telling him it is not his fault for three reasons, first, he returned the kettle in one piece, second, it was broken when it was lent to him, and third, he never borrowed the kettle in the first place.

I don't tell jokes very well. But, the point is that the neighbor has been caught in a lie because in his effort to give overwhelming evidence to his point, he has contradicted his other evidence, three times over.

This is the same sort of flawed logic that people use when they make the decision to vote, and when they argue with me that I am wrong not to vote.

My proposition: the statistical effect of my vote, in our election system, is an insult to the ideals of a governance by the people. Furthermore, the parties are corrupt, political corporations that should probably be run out of town on a rail, if not tried for crimes. And lastly, the idea that any particular candidate could ever inspire my confidence in a state like the United States of America is against what I have come to identify as political truths, any sort of human/natural/ecological justice, and my own life in particular.

The counter-arguments come thick and fast. And the "kettle" rears its ugly, broken spout.

First Kettle, as poured by the typical liberal, fan of American democracy:

1. My vote does make a difference.

2. My vote doesn't make a difference, but if everyone else thought as I did, then one vote would make a difference.

3. Votes don't make a difference at all, but I should vote anyway as some sort of "citizen's duty". Kind of like a pledge of allegiance.

How can any of these three be, seeing as they all contradict each other? And furthermore, they all contradict the statistical fact that one vote does not count. One of my favorite citations for this fact is a book called To Vote or Not to Vote, the authors of which I cannot remember right now. It goes into deep analysis of all the bizarre probabilities that could potentially come into play and shows that no, in fact, a person's vote, among a category of choices, does not matter. They, however, maintain the 3rd option listed above, that despite this statistical fact, it is an important national ceremony of some sort.

There are additional kettles. One regards the candidates. I think that there is can be no candidate for president, under whom I would feel comfortable living as subject. But even for those candidates that I think should be president, under the logic that my vote boycott will not eliminate the executive branch and therefore there should be a person who can do the least harm in the office, the choice to vote for a candidate does not in any way cause a candidate that you wish to be elected. It is false choice, a horrible compromise, that is endlessly cooked down until you have to choose between Shitty A and Shitty B.

Here's the Kettle:

1. Of the two, nominated, major party candidates, one will be a good president.

2. Neither of the two major party candidates are great picks. Therefore, one should vote for a third party candidate, in the spirit of democracy.

3. Voting for a third party or otherwise minority-appeal candidate "throws a vote away". Therefore, you should vote for the candidate that you hate least, that might have a chance.

The way this kettle works is that it attempts to tell me that what my logical pick is, is the person who has already been picked. Regardless of what my political opinions are, it tell me the best place to look for my selection is to see what everyone else has already selected. How is this "My Choice, 2008"?

There are other kettles as well, but my internet time is almost up.

I would like to direct anyone who thinks that they are going to vote, who still isn't sold on the second kettle, to peruse this Democracy Now! interview with Alan Nairn and Kelley Beaucar Vlahos. They talk about what you are really voting for: not the candidates, but the advisers. And the advisers are the same people already fucking over politics: the ones responsible for war, environmental degradation, and death. So enjoy voting for Obama, losers. I hope you feel good when you do it, like you have the spirit of hope. Because no matter what you do, they've already won.

How does 1983 feel?

So this past weekend I bought the original single of "Blue Monday" by New Order for a dollar. It wasn't in great condition; it was obviously well-loved, and the BPM sticker on the sleeve (130) tells me it was owned by a DJ. However, this also means that the disc itself was taken care of, and it plays perfectly.

What a great dance track! Depite, its subsequent hipster overplay.

Also, the outer sleeve is die-cut to look like a 4 1/2 inch floppy disk! Like this!



The inner sleeve is silver, and pokes out as if it were the original "disk" in floppy disk. Your flash drive doesn't make a good album cover, that's for sure.

The video features lovely computerized graphics that also remind of the same technological epoch. Check it out! I especially like the pixly image of the space shuttle blasting off.

Let the Crooked be Made Straight...

I used to be offended, in that sort of sideways, "it's not actually offensive to me personally, but I'm sure glad I'm not them," way about the fact that Hallmark brands its African-American greeting cards as "Mahogany" cards (you know, the cards that were brought over from Africa as slave cards, but now are half as American as a white card). Mahogany is a dark, rain forest wood (though, strangely, from the Amazonian rain forest, I guess that magazine had already copyrighted "Ebony") that is highly priced for its sturdiness, and rich, dark color. "Mahogany Cards: when you just need to play the race card." That's not actually the slogan, but I bet [jungesam] will think its funny.

Anyway, I was that sort of offended, until yesterday, when I became actually offended. I went to Walgreens to buy a Hanukkah card, and what did I find, as a relic of the prejudice that is forever a part of the Northwestern United States' history? All the Jewish cards--Hanukkah, Bar/Bat Mitzvah, Simchat Torah, and what-have-you--are all now branded as "Tree of Life" cards. Bastards!

Offensive, times two: one-the tree of life is forbidden by God's edict. We are forever shut from the garden of eden, and they had to rub that in our faces! Our bronzed, diasporadic, faces. Two-you know what the "tree of life" refers to, besides that? The LOINS OF DAVID. The line of David will bring the messiah, and thus, resurrection. I guarantee that not only does the tetragrammon NOT send holiday cards, if s/he did, they would not have messianic power, because THEY ARE ONLY PIECES OF PAPER WITH CARTOON DOGS EATING LATKES ON THEM.

Fun religion fact! Did you know that according to the heretic "Christian" faith, as the Messiah, Jesus is of the line of David? That's what all those "begats" beget in the beginning of Matthew. See, there is David sperm in Jesus! Even though, you know, Mary was a virgin... right. Hmm. But, the really fun part of this fun fact is that because of this medieval artists often protrayed Jesus as the "branch" of the tree of life--literally! There is a stained glass window in some cathedral in Europe that shows David lining on his back, a tree of life blossoming from his crotch, and Jesus hanging out in the branches! I shit you not! Religion is really weird.

And all I wanted to do was send a holiday card to my parents. Goddamn apostate Hallmark sick sexual perversion begetting bastards.

Tomorrow we'll talk about the mystical application of the tree of life in Kabbalah!


Adam

ps. I can't seem to find a picture of the stained glass window, but I've definitely seen it before. If anyone knows what I'm talking about, please let me know.

Some time, some where, there will be blogs...

Hi...

Just checking in to tell those interested in pCARL but are perhaps not checking the pCARL blog, that I have decided to memorialize and periodize my pCARL attempt in a Journal on the pCARL blog. So, if you want to read about my experience re-writing The Confidence-Man: His Mascquerade by Herman Melville, you should check pCARL at intervals.


Later!

pCARL, off into the world you go

pCARL has its own blog! Check it out!

Soon to come, social networking! The interdome is JUST THAT EASY!

pCARL is born! No, not an indecent sex act! A writing project!

So, recently, as in, my last post, I developed a lengthy and polemic rant against the National Novel Writing Month. Many strange avenues of argument were followed, and some personal issues laid bare. But, the criticism was largely not on the constructive side.

However, in a change from my typical style of "lambaste 'em and leave 'em", I am going to start making this a personal mission. I am actually going to "follow thorough", rather than sardonically sit back with folded arms. Through some brainstorming with Tom and Megan (you can see my conversation with Tom in the comments section of the last post) I have given birth to an illegitimate, monstrous, and most likely short-lived offspring. What is this placenta-wet son of Cain? Let me be the first to introduce you to:

The Pseudo-Creative Annual Ritual for Literature
henceforth to be known as pCARL, until a better name with a better acronym can be developed.

Questions That Might be Asked Often to Elucidate this Strange Thing:

What is pCARL?

- pCARL is a sarcastic response to National Novel Writing Month (and the according acronym that will not be named). pCARL is a project that is pretentious, largely tongue-in-cheek, and yet still completely and utterly serious about helping people improve their writing by an actual appreciation for literature rather than a self-indulgent leap into basic literacy.

What is the motivation for this self-righteous act that mocks the creativity of others?

- National Novel Writing Month is based around the idea that a method for instigating the art of writing is the sheer propagation of quantity. The FAQ says that without the challenge of the deadline and the ritualistic group aspect, many of the participants would not put pen/cursor to paper/screen at all, and therefore any writing is good writing. The 50,000 word limit is also one of the most steadfast rules, celebrating an arbitrary length of symbols as the quantifier for the completion of the task.
Here at pCARL, we take a different approach. In a country with a near-perfect literacy rate and yet such an abundance of mediocre-at-best literary output (tell-all books, popular histories, fan fiction, and gimmicky series being some of the most widely-selling printed material, not to mention the rise of the magazine in place of actual prose) it seems straight-up detrimental to praise the cancerous metastasis of malignant words as actual creativity! It is as a plague to the art of prose! It is a insult to iambic pentameter! It is deleterious to every literary device we praise and enjoy! The day that the sheer abundance of words is treated as actual literary output is the day the public library is absorbed by the department of motor vehicles, and by the muses, we will not stand by and see authorship reduced to a mass of bureaucracy!

So, what are we actually talking about?

-As noted by Tom, one learns to play a musical instrument by learning classic tunes. There is a reason that classics stand the test of time, and by practicing the basics we learn to create new art on our own. Artists take pencil and paper to the museum, the budding guitarist buys a book of Led Zepplin or Bob Dylan tabulature, and craftsmen make a simple chair before constructing an ornate sideboard. Authors begin by reading. But in the journey towards creative output, and making paper actually accumulate weight, the writer often puts down the library card in favor of a pen.
Not so fast! No one is too old to learn from the likes of Marlowe, Gogol, or Woolf. There are too many classic works of literature for us ever to absorb the lessons of them all; however, this is no reason not to try. No amount of newly penned work could erase the weight of all that has come before; the creative process must always look backward, as it also looks forward. Otherwise, we will look up one day and find ourselves in a desert of Newspeak: our language would not even familiar to ourselves, because it has lost the long history of evolution by which meaning is passed into symbol, and by which stories are told. Amid sound and fury it may still signify, but the long life that is its power is diminished. Whether told by and idiot or an ideologue, true literature is not the author's own language s/he is uttering, but the language of all of us, of all humans, of Homer, as much as Chaucer, as much as Shelley, as much as Dickens, as much as Pynchon...

Will you get to the point, jerk?

-During the month of November, we will each re-write a great work of literature. The goal is to learn the lessons of language that have already been inscribed in classic texts, and thereby to reanimate the creativity inherent in great writing by learning from it, word by word, sentence by sentence, from "beginning" to "end". It is a close reading, a writing exercise, an act of homage, and a way to while the hours til death claims us all. The work of literature to be re-written may be anything literary, that is defensible as such in the Introduction to the Re-Writing. Length of the work chosen may be any number of words or other quantitative markers, but it is cautioned that the goal is to learn something, and as practice makes perfect, repetition makes renewal. Therefore, pick a length of work that will not be too easy, but not be an insurmountable task. Too short, and the lesson of the literature may be missed. Too long, and one may not follow through. The work chosen is the participant's choice for a reason, so choose carefully for yourself.
Note: The re-writing does not necessarily have to be "word for word". However, it is a re-writing, and not an adaptation. The finished product will be labeled: "the title of the work, by the original author, edited by the participant."

What did you mean by "Introduction to the Re-Writing"?

There will be an original Introduction to the Re-Writing written by the re-writer, just before the beginning of the re-written text. This may consist of anything, but should justify the task and the re-written text as the participant justified it to him/herself, to set the context for anyone examining the newly re-written text, under the new appended label. If there are differences between the original text and the re-written version, we suggest that you think seriously about what the differences may signify, and how the work of literature changes, and include mention of these reflections in the Introduction. What can be learned from the original, the new, and the comparison between them upon the reading of the text? One way to study any differences may be to note the re-writing changes with a note of some sort, as is common in newly edited editions of classic works. But all of this is up to the participant, as the person conducting the lesson for him/herself. The only rule is that there must be an Introduction.

Are you freakin' serious?

-Well, not generally, but regarding pCARL, yes. While we may not subscribe to the idea that there is never anything new under the sun, we definitely feel that there is a building of culture, that there is a sediment of creative human output that builds upon itself. How could we consider ourselves adding to it unless we study what is already there? A close reading as a personal course of study and reflection is one way to take on the weight of culture. And besides, it could be fun! What student of literature hasn't wished that s/he was able to write Gulliver's Travels, or Beowulf, or Naked Lunch, or The Bible? Now you can! And you will certainly walk away with a heightened appreciation for the text that you didn't have before, no matter how many times you had read it in the past.

So, what are you going to re-write?

-I think, but have not quite decided, on re-writing The Confidence-Man by Herman Melville. I just read it, would like to read it again, and fell in love with Melville as a writer through the work. It is also available in the Project Gutenberg, which means that no one owns the copyright. I think that this could only help, in case I decide that I want to publish my re-writing on the internet or something. Megan has loosely committed to re-writing The Gambler by Dostoevsky, as long as she can do it in Russian. Another reason to participate in pCARL! Foreign language books are totally in, and this could help you brush up on your second, third, or ninth language. You could even translate something if you want! Translating is certainly an homage to a work of literature, and a decent exercise in writing, and an art all of its own.

How do I get involved?

-Re-write a book! Conduct a Pseudo-Creative Annual Ritual for Literature! If you like, spread the word about it to your literary friends, and let us know your results! Even if you only get halfway, you are halfway through. No need for an half empty/full glass here, there is no such thing as empty words!


Now go, get to the library, and re-write for literature!
Silly, perhaps. Pretentious, yes. But we're going with it. Happy literature to you.

You're so novel...

Among the many things that I hate, I HATE national novel writing month. I refuse to use the ridiculous abbreviation.

My hate has very little (though some) to do with the critique that you can't write a good novel in a month, and very little (but more) to do with the idea of thousands of people thinking they can write although they cannot. My hate also totally drunkenly crashes its bike into the car owned by the idea (just go with the metaphor) that 'it is good to stimulate people to write'.


Here are the ingredients of which my hate consists:

One: The idea that 90,000 people writing a novel, for good or bad, is somehow a good thing, is ridiculous. First of all, there are over 90,000 shitty books published every month already: from celebrity ghost-written tell-alls, to stupid 'here's the story of me doing this thing in real life', to self-help books that are as much literature as anything else in the new releases section at a big book store, to historical fiction to the next Halo novel (yes, a series based on a video game). What more are 90,000 more? Even if the effort garners fifty worthwhile books, wouldn't these people who can write have written a book anyway? Why do we need a month?

Two: Why do we need a month to celebrate the bare-bones fact of literacy? Sure, people don't exercise their creative writing skills enough. But the people who already think they are 'writers' will be filling their moleskins anyway, no matter what month it is. The people watching "My Name is Earl" are still watching TV. All this month does is give people an excuse to waste more paper, not improve their vocabularies.

Three: 'Novel'? What the fuck is a novel? If you want to talk narrative, there are far too many narratives out there, populating the vast abyss that is our cultural unconscious, and by encouraging people to reify these bastardized archetypes by aping actual literature is just thinking that you have created life via growing e. coli all over your walls by rubbing raw chicken all over them. Committing something to words, the ability of every literate person, does not literature make. This is a talent and art that is not about telling a story. This conception of 'the novel' is what leads every person with the money to buy paint think that they are an artist. Sure, everyone needs to practice to be good at anything, but this leads back to number two, above. Why not hand out diplomas to everyone who buys the books, even if they don't go to class? Because simply signing up doesn't mean you learn anything.

Four: SOME OF US ARE ACTUALLY TRYING TO WRITE ALL THE TIME BUT HAVE TO WORK FOR A LIVING AND GET HOME SO TIRED EVERY NIGHT THAT THEY CAN'T WORK ON WHAT THEY REALLY WANT TO AND THE IDEA THAT 90,000 PEOPLE SOMEHOW HAVE THE TIME TO DEDICATE A MONTH TO SUCH A BULLSHIT MOCKERY OF SOMETHING REALLY IMPORTANT TO ME MAKES ME WANT TO BURN THINGS. (ok, let's just forget number four.)

Five: I don't really know what all the people who take part in this fool exercise are like, but I have some guesses. These are people who consider themselves creative, have a wide variety of interests and hobbies, and are open-minded and adventurous enough to take on some project like this. I'm also guessing that they don't dedicate themselves to anything specifically, otherwise they would simply be doing that. A painter or a fashion designer (amateur or not) would not take out a month to try a different creative hobby. A writer would be writing anyway, november novel or not (see number two). These are people who like to take pictures, have tried painting, garden a bit, and what the hell, they have a computer, so why not try a novel. This will be one more half-finished project that they will give up once they lose momentum or november ends. I guess there is nothing really objectionable about this, except that it leads to all of the above. There is this weird romanticism about being a renaissance man/woman... why? Why not try and actually perfect something? Why not take a year to write a novel, if writing a novel is what you want/have to do. Why not actually be good at acoustic guitar rather than just learning a few bob dylan songs? Why not actually try to create something new, rather than just sewing together some handbags? I guess if you don't want to do something that bad, then it is just a hobby. And while there is nothing wrong with writing as a hobby, there is number two, and clearly we need no "take a picture day" or "knitting week". Just because we're all capable of writing doesn't mean anyone can, should, or needs to be writing a novel in the month of november. Why isn't a grocery list a poem? Why isn't every journal a novel? Why isn't paint art? I don't know exactly, but I can tell you of all the words that will be spent in the month of november, we won't get any closer to finding out. Masturbating doesn't teach you how to fuck. And here we are back at the beginning.




thanks for listening,

Adam (who just spent half an hour typing this rather than actually writing)

From Your Living Room to Your Lebensraum

Let's take another fun Interdome field trip to... the Headlines!

Well, what have we today? Some auto union is striking... ooh, Lindsay Lohan isn't going out this weekend... (guess I'll stay in too)... and, well, hmm... but what have we here:

BUSH URGES CONGRESS TO REJECT ARMENIAN GENOCIDE RESOLUTION

Color me a-news-ed.

"But wait," ask the doe-eyed children gathered 'round the Interdome, "What does this mean?"

Let's delve into it, shall we? From the International Herald Tribune's 690 words on the subject, we learn that this resolution to name the murder of 1,000,000 Armenians in 1914-1918 a "genocide" could hurt our political relationship with the modern Turkish state, and therefore we shouldn't do it. It appears that the resolution is simply a push from some "interest groups" whose interest is that considering their cultural heritage, they would have qualified for the death camps back then.

This isn't the only recent time that American government has struggled to figure out what the definition of "genocide" is. In fact, the American government seems to have lots of trouble with definitions of words. But, I digress.

If we only read the IHT's article on the vocabulary discussion, we might just move onto the next headline, because, frankly, "genocide" is not a very happy word of the day, and there certainly is a big Interdome out there to read. But, for some retarded reason, I guess we are going to dig a bit deeper.

Turkey, as the IHT tells us, is one of the main transit points for American war supplies heading to Iraq. Therefore, improving relations with Turkey allows the Americans (let's try and pay attention so we don't get "Armenian" and "American" confused, eh?) wage war in the Middle East.

However, the actual way of things is that American-Turkish relations have been declining. After the Truman Doctrine established that Turkey was seeking support of America against the USSR (and other pro-Communist groups like the PKK--remember this, we'll come back to it!), an American military base was established in Turkey in 1954, that is used to the present day. But, ever since the end of the Cold War, and the end of the nice balance between East and West to divide the world, relations have been strained. Turkey has continued to be pro-US in order to support their foray into the EU, among other things, and they have backed this up by supporting American wars in the Middle East and recognizing Israel as a state despite how this has hurt them in their Middle East/Islamic relations.

So, for a country through which "the bulk of U.S. air cargo and about one-third of the fuel headed for Iraq passes," quoth the IHT, it would be important to keep them happy. So would a resolution about the Armenian genocide really be a thorn in the Turkish thumb?

Well, Turkey is not only a convenient conveyor belt to the hole in the desert into which we're currently pouring money. Like most so-called "resolutions", the matter itself is less resolved than other, more important, "strategic" things are alluded. Turkey is also the primary target, and major operating base of a group called the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK).

The PKK started in the 1970s as a Kurdish nationalist political group, and escalated to the level of a paramilitary organization. It's philosophy was Marxist-Leninist to begin with, but now has shifted to the Islamic hue post-Cold War.

These days, they are a "terrorist-organization"--a vocab word that was agreed upon by the US. The US has helped Turkey fight the PKK, allegedly with the CIA, and also through NATO paramilitary "stay-behind" forces that were placed in Turkey. The object of these forces was to remain hidden in the population so as to "stay behind" to conduct guerrilla operations in the event of a USSR invasion, but they were often utilized, at who-knows-who's behest to conduct paramilitary or domestic terrorism operations.

But, oh-so-surprisingly, in this crazy post-Cold War world things seem to have been getting confused. It seems that some of the weapons that the US has sent to Iraq (most likely through Turkey), you know, those weapons the US can't find, have ended up in the hands of the PKK.

And what's more, that very-lucrative-and-increasingly-popular contracting company Blackwater USA has been accused of directly smuggling weapons to the PKK! Horrors!

Now, why would the USA be smuggling weapons to a formerly Communist, avowedly terrorist, separatist group that they are simultaneously fighting in order to court their allies?

Why indeed!

Although I hardly claim to be in the neo-cons' brains, I would say that it is something along the lines of...

The PPK is a separatist nationalist group that while not having much of a positive effect for its own policy, is currently involved in destabilizing the ENTIRE Middle East region, and specifically the governments of Turkey, Syria, Iraq, and Iran.

Why would it help US policy to destabilize the region? Well, they've certainly done a good job of it so far, I don't see why they would not use any tool available to them to continue. Regardless of other positive and negative outcomes of the Iraq War for American interests, destabilization is an outcome that has only benefited the economic, political, and ideological status of the United States. And, if they didn't want to destabilize the region, there are certainly other ways they could be going about this project. Intimidation, fomenting armed conflict, and cross-border operations just speak so loudly, you know.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, Congress is occupying its time with a history lesson on whether the killing of 1,000,000 or so constitutes a certain word, something that the New York Times had reported some 90 years ago. That's a pretty good way of avoiding a current problem.

It really boggles my mind that it so easy to hide the killing of millions in plain sight. I guess that the typical person, and by this, I mean the overwhelming majority of the population, just doesn't care about these sorts of deaths, especially if they occur on the other side of the globe.

It certainly never stops. Turks kill Armenians, Germans kill Jews, Poles, and others, Sudanese kill other Sudanese, Americans kill Iraqis, and others. You know what the estimated numbers are dead were for the Iraqi Economic Sanctions, even before the war started? The same as the Armenian Genocide, 500,000-1,500,000. It never stops.

I guess we'll conclude this field trip with a quote, from a guy of whom you may have heard, who goes by the name of Adolf Hitler. It was said during a military meeting in 1939, before the invasion of Poland.

"I have issued the command -- and I’ll have anybody who utters but one word of criticism executed by a firing squad -- that our war aim does not consist in reaching certain lines, but in the physical destruction of the enemy. Accordingly, I have placed my death-head formation in readiness -- for the present only in the East -- with orders to them to send to death mercilessly and without compassion, men, women, and children of Polish derivation and language. Only thus shall we gain the living space [Lebensraum] which we need. Who, after all, speaks to-day of the annihilation of the Armenians?"

Where does American economic-lebensraum lie today? You can manifest that destiny for yourself, but one thing is certain, that were certainly have trouble to-day speaking of the annihilation of the Armenians.

Ancient Greek Animals

Kiki wanted to see my pictures of dogs in Athens, so here are some animals!

Woof, meow, baa!

This dog was collecting tickets outside of the Agora.

These cats were in the Acropolis.

This baby goat was foraging in the hills outside of Nemea.

The famous, "kitties of Delphi", who were very interested in this man's halibut.

An Olympian lizard.

Chickens outside the hotel window. There was also a turkey, but I didn't take his picture.

Kitty and gyros- 4 euro.

A cat on Santorini on stairs

Tortoise. I also saw two makin' little tortoises, but for their privacy I did not take a picture.

This is my aunt's dog, and so not really Greek (actually, Chinese by birth) but she is certifiably cute! And, her name is Zoe, which is Greek.