Let’s face it, America has gone to pot. Only around 28% percent of the population thinks our elected leader is doing his job, which means that even half the people who voted for him don’t like him. Cheney’s approval rating is hovering around 13%. We’re stuck in a mishandled war that has cost over 3,500 American lives, $470 billion and the trust of the American people. Violent crime rates are soaring. New Orleans is still a disaster area and a war zone. Regardless of the factual basis of global warming, environmental degradation is a major problem and America seems reluctant to do anything about it (we recently rejected a proposition that was to be presented at the upcoming G-8 Summit calling for higher emissions standards). No one knows how to handle the illegal immigration problem. We are the richest nation in the world and a disgustingly large number of people can’t afford health care. The list goes on.
There are no limits to the problems we could become righteously, and rightfully, indignant about. As Daily Show host Jon Stewart asserted, Bush, Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Karl Rove should be forced to appear on a 24 hour telethon where every citizen could call up and ask “Hey man, what the f#%$?”
The problem is that, in my conspiracy theorist opinion, only one of those people deserves the blame. Bush is a smarter man than people give him credit for, but he is no evil genius. He’s like that lovable uncle that brings a nice gift to your birthday party, but ends up getting drunk and falling in the cake. All bungled honorable intentions. Besides, the presidency is mostly a symbolic position. The president can’t actually write or implement policy, and thanks to the system of checks and balances, along with the ever-watchful media, the president’s real world power is severely limited.
Cheney is a hypocritical, bigoted old man whose heart, after a lifetime of cardiac disease, has most likely been reduced to a shriveled mass of lipid fat. But Cheney is just that: an old man. He is too fragile, publicly despised and blatantly polarizing to wield the kind of behind the scenes power he is so often credited with.
Rumsfeld was ignorant and arrogant, a truly dangerous combination. He never had a grasp on the war he was walking into, or any sense of what its conclusion might be. Either his intelligence was faulty, which shows he was an inept manager that didn’t have the respect of his subordinates, or he lied about the intelligence he did have, which demonstrates that he is, well, a liar. But Rumsfeld was merely a supervisor; he managed one branch of the government and held no sway in the others. And he’s been gone for some time now, and things haven’t gotten better.
That leaves one man. The puppet master pulling all the strings, operating behind the scenes to manipulate the political landscape and always staying just out of reach, escaping fresh as a daisy when the shit hits the fan. The most powerful, and insidious, man in America. The man with the Heart of Darkness: Karl Rove.
Now you want to know how he attained this power, and what makes him pure evil...but you’ll have to come back tomorrow…
Thanks for reading.
Thursday, May 31, 2007
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
New Hire Blames Stink-Nasty Fart on Supervisor
In what has been described by Prudent Financial employees as an unwise, ill-advised and potentially career limiting decision, recent college graduate and new financial services advisor Jeffrey Skopowitz, 23, blamed a tear-jerking, knee-buckling release of noxious gas on his hiring manager and supervisor, Lynelle Beckord.
The incident, according to Skopowitz, occurred sometime between 10:23 and 10:25 AM on Tuesday morning. The exact time of the infraction can only be speculated, as Skopowitz credits himself with liberating a succession of stink bombs during this period, making it impossible to know which one caused Skopowitz himself to cringe.
Skopowitz claims that at around 10:20 he felt a rumble in his stomach and realized that the multiple beers and bean burrito the night before, the sausage, cheese and egg croissant-wich he ate for breakfast, and the “7 or 8” cups of coffee he pounded that morning to relieve his hangover were coming back to haunt him. Facing the inevitable, Skopowitz began coughing to cover the series of bassy rumbles and high-pitched squeaks, lifted his right cheek to encourage air flow and prevent the formation of a gas-retaining vacuum, and focused his energies on not shitting his pants, giving the impression that he was deeply pondering the Excel spreadsheet on his computer screen.
When the outburst finally came to its warm, humid conclusion a cloud of steamy air rose to Skopowitz’s nose level, bringing with it a vile stench that can only be described as an inhumane mixture of rotting egg, bile, decomposing flesh and oddly a touch of cilantro, causing him to double over and seek a trash can as bits of barely digested breakfast sandwich rose to the back of his mouth.
Hoping to dissipate the smell before it was detected by coworkers, Skopowitz proceeded to fan his rear with a stack of annual reports, an effort that proved futile as the stink hung in the air and clung to his clothes as only the nastiest of farts can. Skopowitz’s dilemma was exacerbated as a large meeting in a nearby conference room ended and a steady stream of coworkers, most of them high ranking officials, began passing by his cube.
Panicking as senior employees streamed by, visibly gagging, Skopowitz discreetly pointed to Beckord’s office, located just across the hall from his cube, as Beckord, oblivious to the situation, merrily waved to her colleagues as they disgustedly scowled in her direction.
The extent to which Beckord is aware of the incident is still unknown, but reports indicate that Skopowitz has since been assigned large quantities of mundane “bitch-work.” Reached for comment, Skopowitz claimed “I’d do it again if I had to. I’d rather spend the rest of my life reformatting pie charts than have people think I stink, even if I do.”
The incident, according to Skopowitz, occurred sometime between 10:23 and 10:25 AM on Tuesday morning. The exact time of the infraction can only be speculated, as Skopowitz credits himself with liberating a succession of stink bombs during this period, making it impossible to know which one caused Skopowitz himself to cringe.
Skopowitz claims that at around 10:20 he felt a rumble in his stomach and realized that the multiple beers and bean burrito the night before, the sausage, cheese and egg croissant-wich he ate for breakfast, and the “7 or 8” cups of coffee he pounded that morning to relieve his hangover were coming back to haunt him. Facing the inevitable, Skopowitz began coughing to cover the series of bassy rumbles and high-pitched squeaks, lifted his right cheek to encourage air flow and prevent the formation of a gas-retaining vacuum, and focused his energies on not shitting his pants, giving the impression that he was deeply pondering the Excel spreadsheet on his computer screen.
When the outburst finally came to its warm, humid conclusion a cloud of steamy air rose to Skopowitz’s nose level, bringing with it a vile stench that can only be described as an inhumane mixture of rotting egg, bile, decomposing flesh and oddly a touch of cilantro, causing him to double over and seek a trash can as bits of barely digested breakfast sandwich rose to the back of his mouth.
Hoping to dissipate the smell before it was detected by coworkers, Skopowitz proceeded to fan his rear with a stack of annual reports, an effort that proved futile as the stink hung in the air and clung to his clothes as only the nastiest of farts can. Skopowitz’s dilemma was exacerbated as a large meeting in a nearby conference room ended and a steady stream of coworkers, most of them high ranking officials, began passing by his cube.
Panicking as senior employees streamed by, visibly gagging, Skopowitz discreetly pointed to Beckord’s office, located just across the hall from his cube, as Beckord, oblivious to the situation, merrily waved to her colleagues as they disgustedly scowled in her direction.
The extent to which Beckord is aware of the incident is still unknown, but reports indicate that Skopowitz has since been assigned large quantities of mundane “bitch-work.” Reached for comment, Skopowitz claimed “I’d do it again if I had to. I’d rather spend the rest of my life reformatting pie charts than have people think I stink, even if I do.”
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
The White Stripes and Why They Rock My Socks Off
Years ago, when I first heard the White Stripes’ breakout hit “Fell in Love with a Girl,” I remember not being impressed. Sure, it was a catchy rock tune with a killer video (remember the legos?), but it was a little rough around the edges for my tastes, I thought Meg White was terribly crude on the drums, and I wrote them off as a one hit wonder. A one-dimensional New York-affected postmodern rock band that would never escape their narrowly defined niche (think The Strokes, The Hives, etc).I’m not too proud to admit a mistake: The White Stripes kick ass. I would even argue that they are hands down the best band making music right now. I realize that this is a bold assertion and you may need some convincing. Allow me to try.
The White Stripes play rock & roll with an energy, sincerity, and passion that is refreshing in an era defined by trite, studio-enhanced, pretty boy rock (damn you, Nickelback) and trite, studio-enhanced, pretty boy pop (unless you’re bringing sexy back, then I can dig it). They are gritty, they are down home, they are American rock in its purest form: rebellious and anti-establishment to the core. They barrage the senses with blues infused dirty rock, soaring, screeching guitar licks backed by methodical, thumping drum beats. And when they want to they can be simple, they can be sweet. Just when you think your head might explode they hit you with “We’re Going to be Friends,” an acoustic ballad to a childhood sweetheart.
Jack White is most definitely the brains behind the band. I still feel that drummer and ex-wife Meg is merely adequate, but really that is all she needs to be. With Jack providing more than enough musical flair for the both of them, all she really needs to do is provide a beat. And her metronome style does just fine.
Jack, meanwhile, is a rock god; I don’t care what anyone says to the contrary. He is Jimmy Paige and Robert Plant rolled into one. Abashed? Contemptuous? Listen to their recently released “Icky Thump” off the upcoming album of the same name. His innovative guitar riffs channel “Whole Lotta Love” while his vocals remind me of “Immigrant Song.” Even Rolling Stone places him at 17 on their “100 Greatest Guitarists of All Time.”
It’s a shame that he was born 40 years too late. If he would have been around in the late ‘60s/early ‘70s he would have been idolized, he would have sold out arenas anywhere he went, he would have partied with Led Zeppelin. That was a time when people connected with music, when rock & roll was relevant. Instead, he’s pushed to the underground, ignored by a generation enamored by vapid pop songs that make catchy ring tones.
Friday, May 25, 2007
Consumer Report: Cheaper to Sleep With Paris Hilton than in the Paris Hilton
Due in large part to the strength of the Euro, coupled with the approaching tourist season and a recent boom in international travel, travel agencies are reporting that it is now cheaper to sleep with the hotel heiress and reality TV star Paris Hilton than it is to spend a night in the posh Paris Hilton.The swanky hotel, located on the elegant avenue de Suffren right next to the Eiffel Tower, can command in excess of €350 ($470) a night. It boasts 461 modern rooms with wireless internet access, marble bathrooms and views of the Eiffel Tower, as well as several restaurants, bars, and a garden terrace.
The pricetag on a night with the heiress, meanwhile, can range anywhere from nothing when she is feeling insecure, lonely, or media-starved to a wink and an empty compliment (such as “you’re hot” or “I think you’re so smart”) when she is feeling like her spoiled, promiscuous self. The highest price ever paid was a half liter of Smirnoff and a stick of Juicy Fruit by Greek shipping heir Stavros Niarchos.Reached for comment, family patriarch Barron Hilton shrugged his shoulders and mused “The Paris Hilton is recognized as one of the finest, most elegant hotels in the world. We pride our establishments on luxury, comfort, and service. My granddaughter, on the other hand, is a dirty, dirty tramp.”
Thursday, May 24, 2007
Mr. Jones
The picture of his wife still hung from the drab grey pseudo-carpeted wall of his 6x6 cubicle. If only he had a shred of pride he would have taken it down when she left him, but he didn’t. And the familiar face of the one to whom he had devoted what he considered the best years of his life gave him comfort, reassured him that even he once had dreams, ambitions; that life wasn’t always for naught.
Anyway, the busy season had covered her with post-its and flow charts. She was out of sight, out of mind. Funny that he should have stumbled upon her right then, as he slowly removed the colorful, piercing tacks from the papers which had come to define his life, dropping them carelessly into the trash, each one taking with it another layer of his imagined purpose. And then the walls were bare and he found himself staring at the smiling face of his beloved (ex) wife.
The picture was taken on their honeymoon; a secluded beach on the southern shores of the Dominican Republic. She was so young, they both were. Children, really. No sign of the crow’s feet that would later grow from the edges of her eyes or the cracked lips from years of nervous biting. Just that spontaneous, infectious smile. She never lost the smile. Sure, years of worry ravaged most of her poor face, but not that smile.
Since the divorce he realized that the worry was mostly his doing, and was mostly unnecessary. They had plenty of money, a nice home, new cars, but he couldn’t keep himself from imagining that it would one day all come crashing down. He had grown up in a small trailer on the outskirts of a mega-farm; corporately owned and mass-producing. His mother and father both worked as corn huskers, coming home ragged and dirty at the end of long days. They worked themselves to death and never escaped the clutches of poverty. In his heart he believed this was his destiny.
He looked down at his watch and realized he was out of time. He had devoted his entire life to this company and they couldn’t even leave him his dignity. “You’re work has been sub-par, and we have to let you go. You have ten minutes to pack up your belongings.” Sure, he had been a little down since the divorce. And then there was the incident, but it was isolated, and that guy should never have said those things about his (ex) wife. Was it really necessary to have security escort him out?
But it was too late;
“Mr. Jones, it’s time to go.”
Anyway, the busy season had covered her with post-its and flow charts. She was out of sight, out of mind. Funny that he should have stumbled upon her right then, as he slowly removed the colorful, piercing tacks from the papers which had come to define his life, dropping them carelessly into the trash, each one taking with it another layer of his imagined purpose. And then the walls were bare and he found himself staring at the smiling face of his beloved (ex) wife.
The picture was taken on their honeymoon; a secluded beach on the southern shores of the Dominican Republic. She was so young, they both were. Children, really. No sign of the crow’s feet that would later grow from the edges of her eyes or the cracked lips from years of nervous biting. Just that spontaneous, infectious smile. She never lost the smile. Sure, years of worry ravaged most of her poor face, but not that smile.
Since the divorce he realized that the worry was mostly his doing, and was mostly unnecessary. They had plenty of money, a nice home, new cars, but he couldn’t keep himself from imagining that it would one day all come crashing down. He had grown up in a small trailer on the outskirts of a mega-farm; corporately owned and mass-producing. His mother and father both worked as corn huskers, coming home ragged and dirty at the end of long days. They worked themselves to death and never escaped the clutches of poverty. In his heart he believed this was his destiny.
He looked down at his watch and realized he was out of time. He had devoted his entire life to this company and they couldn’t even leave him his dignity. “You’re work has been sub-par, and we have to let you go. You have ten minutes to pack up your belongings.” Sure, he had been a little down since the divorce. And then there was the incident, but it was isolated, and that guy should never have said those things about his (ex) wife. Was it really necessary to have security escort him out?
But it was too late;
“Mr. Jones, it’s time to go.”
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
Area Teen Follows Friends off Bridge
The old parental adage “if your friends jumped off a bridge would you do it too?” was finally put to the test late Thursday evening after 15 year-old Jason Markley witnessed two of his friends, Scotty Thompson, 15, and Karl Greggors, 16, hurl their lanky teenage bodies from the Fifth Street Bridge.
Long considered to be a rhetorical question, Markley found himself face to face with this hypothetical situation in a very concrete way as he was forced to make a decision: depart from the norms of his peers and face social ostracization or leap to certain, bloody death.
As Markley hesitated police negotiators were called to the scene. A short time later the boy’s parents arrived to find young Jason teetering on the edge of the bridge, gripping the icy railing and gazing down at the mangled corpses of his friends 150 ft below.
While Markley’s parents pled with the stubborn teenager, law enforcement officials prepared for the worst. An emergency response team was sent to the bottom of the gorge and a grief counselor was brought on site. Chief negotiator Philip Ortiz commented “Peer pressure is a powerful force. There’s not much we can do. We’ve seen kids inhale, inject, consume poisons, beat each other beyond recognition, and yes, leap to certain death. When it comes to teenagers, none of them are as dumb as all of them are.”
Witnesses report that Markley’s last words were “I don’t want to jump, but all my friends are doing it. What choice do I have?”
Long considered to be a rhetorical question, Markley found himself face to face with this hypothetical situation in a very concrete way as he was forced to make a decision: depart from the norms of his peers and face social ostracization or leap to certain, bloody death.
As Markley hesitated police negotiators were called to the scene. A short time later the boy’s parents arrived to find young Jason teetering on the edge of the bridge, gripping the icy railing and gazing down at the mangled corpses of his friends 150 ft below.
While Markley’s parents pled with the stubborn teenager, law enforcement officials prepared for the worst. An emergency response team was sent to the bottom of the gorge and a grief counselor was brought on site. Chief negotiator Philip Ortiz commented “Peer pressure is a powerful force. There’s not much we can do. We’ve seen kids inhale, inject, consume poisons, beat each other beyond recognition, and yes, leap to certain death. When it comes to teenagers, none of them are as dumb as all of them are.”
Witnesses report that Markley’s last words were “I don’t want to jump, but all my friends are doing it. What choice do I have?”
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
24 Season Finale: Thank God it's Over
This season was my first for the hit Fox show “24,” and I’m pleased to say it will probably be my last. I don’t claim to be ultra-busy or pretend to have even moderately more important things to do than watch this testosterone injected soap opera. Truthfully, time spent not watching “24” would most likely be squandered anyway, but at least I won’t have committed an hour (or two) every week to a show that promises patriotic displays of courage, honor and loyalty, and inevitably disappoints.
The primary problem with this show, for me, is that so few of the characters have any moral fiber, integrity, or sense of justice, and as a result I find myself spending every episode (particularly last night’s barrage of tedium) hoping that many of them will die painful, bloody deaths.
Unfortunately, this distaste for the characters on the show extends well beyond the maniacal villains we are supposed to root against. Of course I think Jack’s father Phillip should have gotten a bullet in the head (too bad we didn’t see him die, which naturally means he’s not dead), but is it wrong that I think his nephew Josh is a whiny little wuss and found myself wishing he wouldn’t quite make it off that oil platform? Or that his sister-in-law (and don’t even get me started on the weird sexual tension there) Marilyn is an illogical, hysterical bimbo that should have been killed at about 2:30 in the afternoon when she led Jack into an ambush.
Of course the politicians are a slimy bunch of weasels; I just wish the show runners wouldn’t try to humanize them. Vice President Daniels is the filthiest of the bunch, and in the finale he tries to pull our sympathy strings (not gonna work, at least on me). Are we really supposed to feel bad for his difficult position as interim commander-in-chief when he did everything in his power to put himself there? I’m sorry the Russians are mounting an army near one of your military bases for something completely out of your control…oh, wait, you were prepared to nuke the entire Middle East for the actions of one terrorist cell. I guess what goes around really does come around. And then there’s Tom Lennox, a career flip-flopper riding on the shoulders of whoever happens to be in power. Sure he did a good thing convincing Daniels to pardon Karen Hayes, but I don’t buy for a second that he wouldn’t have done just the opposite if it served his political interests.
And then we get to CTU. This group is our last defense against terrorism. They embody patriotism, courage…or are they mindless drones following any ill-conceived order that comes their way? Once Bill Buchanan is relieved of duty (one character I actually liked) we get to see the true colors of his temporary replacement, Nadia Yassir. Apparently plagued with a complete lack of a moral compass, we get to spend most of the season watching her botch every important decision, cowering behind protocol, and sniveling all along that she’s just following orders. And then in the finale Buchanan has the audacity to patronize her (and ostensibly all of us) by telling her that she did a good job. BS. Around every corner she was given an opportunity to convince us she wasn’t spineless, and she disappointed time and time again. She should have died instead of Milo (that guy got shot and was back to work in two hours. Impressive.) I like Morris alright as a character, but let’s not forget he enabled nuclear weapons. He too, had a chance to redeem himself when CTU was under siege, and should have heroically died saving Chloe, but either the writers didn’t think of that or inexplicably decided we couldn’t part with the Aussie (believe me, we could have). Most frustrating of them all was Agent Doyle. It seems to me that a prerequisite to becoming a CTU agent would be some capacity for independent thought, but it’s exactly Doyle’s breed of mindless robotism that will usher in Big Brother (read George Orwell’s 1984) and be the doom of us all.
No wonder Jack left this team of lackeys in his dust.
Now I salute you, “24.” You wasted an entire day of my life, and I will never get it back. Adieu.
The primary problem with this show, for me, is that so few of the characters have any moral fiber, integrity, or sense of justice, and as a result I find myself spending every episode (particularly last night’s barrage of tedium) hoping that many of them will die painful, bloody deaths.
Unfortunately, this distaste for the characters on the show extends well beyond the maniacal villains we are supposed to root against. Of course I think Jack’s father Phillip should have gotten a bullet in the head (too bad we didn’t see him die, which naturally means he’s not dead), but is it wrong that I think his nephew Josh is a whiny little wuss and found myself wishing he wouldn’t quite make it off that oil platform? Or that his sister-in-law (and don’t even get me started on the weird sexual tension there) Marilyn is an illogical, hysterical bimbo that should have been killed at about 2:30 in the afternoon when she led Jack into an ambush.
Of course the politicians are a slimy bunch of weasels; I just wish the show runners wouldn’t try to humanize them. Vice President Daniels is the filthiest of the bunch, and in the finale he tries to pull our sympathy strings (not gonna work, at least on me). Are we really supposed to feel bad for his difficult position as interim commander-in-chief when he did everything in his power to put himself there? I’m sorry the Russians are mounting an army near one of your military bases for something completely out of your control…oh, wait, you were prepared to nuke the entire Middle East for the actions of one terrorist cell. I guess what goes around really does come around. And then there’s Tom Lennox, a career flip-flopper riding on the shoulders of whoever happens to be in power. Sure he did a good thing convincing Daniels to pardon Karen Hayes, but I don’t buy for a second that he wouldn’t have done just the opposite if it served his political interests.
And then we get to CTU. This group is our last defense against terrorism. They embody patriotism, courage…or are they mindless drones following any ill-conceived order that comes their way? Once Bill Buchanan is relieved of duty (one character I actually liked) we get to see the true colors of his temporary replacement, Nadia Yassir. Apparently plagued with a complete lack of a moral compass, we get to spend most of the season watching her botch every important decision, cowering behind protocol, and sniveling all along that she’s just following orders. And then in the finale Buchanan has the audacity to patronize her (and ostensibly all of us) by telling her that she did a good job. BS. Around every corner she was given an opportunity to convince us she wasn’t spineless, and she disappointed time and time again. She should have died instead of Milo (that guy got shot and was back to work in two hours. Impressive.) I like Morris alright as a character, but let’s not forget he enabled nuclear weapons. He too, had a chance to redeem himself when CTU was under siege, and should have heroically died saving Chloe, but either the writers didn’t think of that or inexplicably decided we couldn’t part with the Aussie (believe me, we could have). Most frustrating of them all was Agent Doyle. It seems to me that a prerequisite to becoming a CTU agent would be some capacity for independent thought, but it’s exactly Doyle’s breed of mindless robotism that will usher in Big Brother (read George Orwell’s 1984) and be the doom of us all.
No wonder Jack left this team of lackeys in his dust.
Now I salute you, “24.” You wasted an entire day of my life, and I will never get it back. Adieu.
Monday, May 21, 2007
Do Guns Kill People? (continued: Who's to Blame?)
If you read the post on Friday, you know that I was about to reveal who was at fault for the proliferation of violent crime. I apologize for the cliffhanger, but I’ve got to do something to keep you all coming back. Without further ado…
I blame the hippies.
Not what you expected? In some ways I experience guilt pangs when I say that. I love much of what the hippies stood for: their advocacy of peace, their challenges to the government and to social norms, their optimism for a better world. If I was born 40 years earlier I could have been a hippy.
But the hippies brought two things into mainstream American culture which would eventually prove to be the destruction of morality, accountability, and the family structure.
The first of these was the Sexual Revolution. In theory, the Sexual Revolution was a positive thing. It did a great deal of good for feminism and equality. It encouraged dialogue about sexuality, bringing the taboo topic out of the shadows and into the public forum.
On the other hand, the Sexual Revolution made casual sex not just acceptable; it made casual sex the norm. It gave its adherents permission to be irresponsible, unaccountable children. Sex requires a certain level of maturity. It requires love, sacrifice, commitment, or the damage it can do is irreparable. Unfortunately our bodies reach that level of maturity before our minds do.
The Sexual Revolution told us that sex is an expression of our freedom and by repressing our sexual urges we were denying ourselves a beautiful gift that life had given us. Sex is a beautiful gift, but as with all gifts it comes with certain responsibilities.
The result of the Sexual Revolution was that young women were becoming mothers before they were emotionally or mentally prepared to do so. Men, given permission to procreate, embraced their instinctive urges. But when it came time to face the inevitable consequences they lacked the maturity and moral fortitude and often panicked, ran. So we are left with mothers too young to be mothers and fathers that are nowhere to be found.
This trend has continued to this day, and in many ways has been magnified as casual sex becomes more and more accepted, a process which has been helped along by advertising and the media.
The second culture-crusher that the hippies made mainstream was illicit drug use. Of course drugs were around long before the hippies, but the hippies glorified them and made them a cultural norm. They justified drug use by claiming it expanded their minds and spread harmony. In reality, it was escapism at its worst.
It started with pot smoking in the ‘60s and escalated into cocaine snorting in the ‘70s. By the time the ’80s rolled around dealers were realizing that drugs were big business and invented crack, a much more potent and addictive high than its predecessors. The result? As with the Sexual Revolution, it led to the disappearance of fathers and the destruction of the family.
Before I start to sound too much like the “Moral Majority” I want to make a disclaimer: I’m against the “Moral Majority.” Too many of them are bigoted, hateful zealots and I refuse to be associated with them. But when it comes to the importance of family I agree with them wholeheartedly. Family is the only thing that can save American Culture. And I’ll agree with them that it is ideal for a child to grow up with both a mother and a father. These roles meet different needs of a developing child.
The number one factor for the spread of violent crime in American society is absent fathers. The overwhelming majority of violent offenders are young males, and the overwhelming majority of these young males grew up without a father. There was no one there to teach them what it meant to be a man, to teach them about accountability for their actions, responsibility to provide, or respect for their fellow man (/woman). There was no one there to ground them when they hit their sister, to smack them upside the head when they cussed, to be a stable force in their lives that gave them something to aspire to.
So they turned to the only male figures they could find: rappers glorifying violence and gang leaders filling their minds with hate, selfishness, and greed. We are left with young men running amuck. They don’t understand accountability, consequences, or respect. They have never been shown what it means to work and they think they are entitled to whatever they want. So they arm themselves with the means necessary, and they take it. No one ever showed them manhood, so while physically they are men, mentally they are little boys.
While the hippies stuck the wrench in the cog of American culture, introducing elements that would prove the downfall of the family structure, it is up to us to fix it. The hippies are gone and it is essential for us, more specifically fathers, to clean up the mess. So men, before you become fathers consider the consequences of your actions, and prepare to be accountable. Take responsibility for teaching your sons what it means to be a man. And all absent fathers: Grow up, be a man, and be present in your children’s lives.
Thanks for reading.
Note: A quick response to the comments Pat made on the last post. I agree with Pat that it is dangerous for the media to portray violence in any sort of glorifying way, and I don’t intend to let them off the hook. They must take responsibility for the material they are producing and need to understand that, unfortunate as it is, many young men are being influenced by the violent, degrading, immoral images and words they present.
But I don’t think that taking violence out of the media is the answer. Media is a reflection of culture, not its guide. The media takes its cues from what is happening in society and from consumer tastes. The problem is that it’s circular. We are a society that craves violence, so the media gives us violence, which further desensitizes us to violence (I agree with Pat on that, too), so we crave more violence, etc.
“It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society” Jiddu Krishnamurti
I blame the hippies.
Not what you expected? In some ways I experience guilt pangs when I say that. I love much of what the hippies stood for: their advocacy of peace, their challenges to the government and to social norms, their optimism for a better world. If I was born 40 years earlier I could have been a hippy.
But the hippies brought two things into mainstream American culture which would eventually prove to be the destruction of morality, accountability, and the family structure.
The first of these was the Sexual Revolution. In theory, the Sexual Revolution was a positive thing. It did a great deal of good for feminism and equality. It encouraged dialogue about sexuality, bringing the taboo topic out of the shadows and into the public forum.
On the other hand, the Sexual Revolution made casual sex not just acceptable; it made casual sex the norm. It gave its adherents permission to be irresponsible, unaccountable children. Sex requires a certain level of maturity. It requires love, sacrifice, commitment, or the damage it can do is irreparable. Unfortunately our bodies reach that level of maturity before our minds do.
The Sexual Revolution told us that sex is an expression of our freedom and by repressing our sexual urges we were denying ourselves a beautiful gift that life had given us. Sex is a beautiful gift, but as with all gifts it comes with certain responsibilities.
The result of the Sexual Revolution was that young women were becoming mothers before they were emotionally or mentally prepared to do so. Men, given permission to procreate, embraced their instinctive urges. But when it came time to face the inevitable consequences they lacked the maturity and moral fortitude and often panicked, ran. So we are left with mothers too young to be mothers and fathers that are nowhere to be found.
This trend has continued to this day, and in many ways has been magnified as casual sex becomes more and more accepted, a process which has been helped along by advertising and the media.
The second culture-crusher that the hippies made mainstream was illicit drug use. Of course drugs were around long before the hippies, but the hippies glorified them and made them a cultural norm. They justified drug use by claiming it expanded their minds and spread harmony. In reality, it was escapism at its worst.
It started with pot smoking in the ‘60s and escalated into cocaine snorting in the ‘70s. By the time the ’80s rolled around dealers were realizing that drugs were big business and invented crack, a much more potent and addictive high than its predecessors. The result? As with the Sexual Revolution, it led to the disappearance of fathers and the destruction of the family.
Before I start to sound too much like the “Moral Majority” I want to make a disclaimer: I’m against the “Moral Majority.” Too many of them are bigoted, hateful zealots and I refuse to be associated with them. But when it comes to the importance of family I agree with them wholeheartedly. Family is the only thing that can save American Culture. And I’ll agree with them that it is ideal for a child to grow up with both a mother and a father. These roles meet different needs of a developing child.
The number one factor for the spread of violent crime in American society is absent fathers. The overwhelming majority of violent offenders are young males, and the overwhelming majority of these young males grew up without a father. There was no one there to teach them what it meant to be a man, to teach them about accountability for their actions, responsibility to provide, or respect for their fellow man (/woman). There was no one there to ground them when they hit their sister, to smack them upside the head when they cussed, to be a stable force in their lives that gave them something to aspire to.
So they turned to the only male figures they could find: rappers glorifying violence and gang leaders filling their minds with hate, selfishness, and greed. We are left with young men running amuck. They don’t understand accountability, consequences, or respect. They have never been shown what it means to work and they think they are entitled to whatever they want. So they arm themselves with the means necessary, and they take it. No one ever showed them manhood, so while physically they are men, mentally they are little boys.
While the hippies stuck the wrench in the cog of American culture, introducing elements that would prove the downfall of the family structure, it is up to us to fix it. The hippies are gone and it is essential for us, more specifically fathers, to clean up the mess. So men, before you become fathers consider the consequences of your actions, and prepare to be accountable. Take responsibility for teaching your sons what it means to be a man. And all absent fathers: Grow up, be a man, and be present in your children’s lives.
Thanks for reading.
Note: A quick response to the comments Pat made on the last post. I agree with Pat that it is dangerous for the media to portray violence in any sort of glorifying way, and I don’t intend to let them off the hook. They must take responsibility for the material they are producing and need to understand that, unfortunate as it is, many young men are being influenced by the violent, degrading, immoral images and words they present.
But I don’t think that taking violence out of the media is the answer. Media is a reflection of culture, not its guide. The media takes its cues from what is happening in society and from consumer tastes. The problem is that it’s circular. We are a society that craves violence, so the media gives us violence, which further desensitizes us to violence (I agree with Pat on that, too), so we crave more violence, etc.
“It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society” Jiddu Krishnamurti
Friday, May 18, 2007
Do Guns Kill People?: A Dialogue
Thanks to Pat Corcoran for weighing in on the “Do Guns Kill People?” post. I appreciate hearing from readers (don’t think I’m forgetting you, Chris Casselman), and his comments were right on.
I think the problem with the gun control debate is that both sides are so blinded by their preconceptions that they miss the point entirely. They focus on guns as they relate to violent crime. The fact of the matter is guns are inanimate objects and therefore CAN”T CAUSE VIOLENCE. Yes, guns are often used as a means to commit violence, but they cannot of their own free will do harm. The widespread violent crime in our country says nothing about the need for more or less gun control (as demonstrated by Switzerland and Japan). But it says everything about our degraded cultural values.
America is a self-serving, hedonistic, morally numbed society. There are a number of different reasons for this which are easy enough to point the finger at. We could say the consumer-driven, capitalistic advertising industry is to blame. This force pounds it into us that our personal pleasures are the only thing worth living for. It tells us that we need need need, and no cost is too great. But in truth the advertising industry is reactionary. It does whatever is working to sell a product, and what is working is based entirely on our tastes. So the industry is only telling us that pleasure is the ultimate goal because that is what we want to hear.
It’s also easy to blame the increasing violence in music, movies, TV and video games for our cultural immorality. It’s argued that this barrage of violence is desensitizing us to its effects. I’m not buying it. I don’t believe that a moral person could possibly become so numbed by witnessing a fictional murder on television that they would go commit a murder in real life. It just doesn’t make sense. As human beings we have an instinctive capability for compassion. We can relate to the pain and suffering of other human beings. But violence in the media does make a convenient scapegoat.
So what is to blame? Tune in on Monday to find out…
Thanks for reading.
I think the problem with the gun control debate is that both sides are so blinded by their preconceptions that they miss the point entirely. They focus on guns as they relate to violent crime. The fact of the matter is guns are inanimate objects and therefore CAN”T CAUSE VIOLENCE. Yes, guns are often used as a means to commit violence, but they cannot of their own free will do harm. The widespread violent crime in our country says nothing about the need for more or less gun control (as demonstrated by Switzerland and Japan). But it says everything about our degraded cultural values.
America is a self-serving, hedonistic, morally numbed society. There are a number of different reasons for this which are easy enough to point the finger at. We could say the consumer-driven, capitalistic advertising industry is to blame. This force pounds it into us that our personal pleasures are the only thing worth living for. It tells us that we need need need, and no cost is too great. But in truth the advertising industry is reactionary. It does whatever is working to sell a product, and what is working is based entirely on our tastes. So the industry is only telling us that pleasure is the ultimate goal because that is what we want to hear.
It’s also easy to blame the increasing violence in music, movies, TV and video games for our cultural immorality. It’s argued that this barrage of violence is desensitizing us to its effects. I’m not buying it. I don’t believe that a moral person could possibly become so numbed by witnessing a fictional murder on television that they would go commit a murder in real life. It just doesn’t make sense. As human beings we have an instinctive capability for compassion. We can relate to the pain and suffering of other human beings. But violence in the media does make a convenient scapegoat.
So what is to blame? Tune in on Monday to find out…
Thanks for reading.
Thursday, May 17, 2007
Do Guns Kill People?
Crime in America has spun out of control. Violent crime rose 3.7 percent nationwide in 2006, and this pales in comparison to what we have seen so far in 2007. According to the justice department offenders are becoming younger, bolder and increasingly violent. Turf wars between rival gangs have taken control of Los Angeles neighborhoods, New Orleans has become reminiscent of the Wild West with its combination of survivalism and opportunism, and we won’t soon forget the tragedy at Virginia Tech that shocked the nation.
I foresee gun control being a major issue in any upcoming elections. Gun lobbyists from both sides of the aisle make major political contributions, demanding to be heard. Politicians have exploited citizens’ fears to win votes, but they have been focusing on the wrong source of fear. To be blunt I’m much more concerned about being robbed and shot in a dark alley than I am about being blown up on a bus by a terrorist. It is essential to the survival of the country that violent crime is reined in.
Among gun control lobbyists there are divergent methods of accomplishing this goal. Those that are against governmental gun control argue that if more citizens had easy access to firearms, violent criminals would be hesitant, not knowing who was armed. Violent crime could be deterred before it started, and could be stopped if it did occur. In states such as Florida, where citizens are allowed to carry concealed weapons, this has proven to be true. The problem with this theory is that more people would potentially take the law into their own hands and it could very easily end in lawlessness
The advocates for stricter gun control argue that fewer guns lead to a lower rate of violent crime. This seems logical to me. If nobody has guns, nobody gets shot. This theory has never been fully put to the test, as no state has gone from allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons to outlawing the practice. Therefore, we don’t know if the crime rate would rise or fall. A compelling argument against stricter gun control laws is that violent criminals will obtain firearms anyway, legally or not, and average, law-abiding citizens will have no way of defending themselves.
To explore these arguments I invite you to take a look at two countries with incredibly low crime rates: Japan and Switzerland.
Japan is well known as having some of the strictest gun control laws. Shotguns (for hunting purposes) are the only firearms that citizens are allowed to own, and they can only obtain these after rigid background checks. Only about .6% of households have firearms (compared with 41% of U.S. households), and as a result they experience only 0.004 murders per 1,000 people (the U.S. is at about .04).
Switzerland, on the other hand, maintains only a very small standing army and relies on a militia system for national defense. Most adult males in the country are members of this militia and keep fully automatic, military assault rifles at home in case of a national emergency. But with all of these firearms, there are only .009 murders per 1,000 people.
Hmm…So the Japanese don’t have guns, and nobody kills anybody, and the Swiss have abundant guns, and nobody kills anybody.
The logical, tragic conclusion:
Guns don’t kill people…Americans do.
I foresee gun control being a major issue in any upcoming elections. Gun lobbyists from both sides of the aisle make major political contributions, demanding to be heard. Politicians have exploited citizens’ fears to win votes, but they have been focusing on the wrong source of fear. To be blunt I’m much more concerned about being robbed and shot in a dark alley than I am about being blown up on a bus by a terrorist. It is essential to the survival of the country that violent crime is reined in.
Among gun control lobbyists there are divergent methods of accomplishing this goal. Those that are against governmental gun control argue that if more citizens had easy access to firearms, violent criminals would be hesitant, not knowing who was armed. Violent crime could be deterred before it started, and could be stopped if it did occur. In states such as Florida, where citizens are allowed to carry concealed weapons, this has proven to be true. The problem with this theory is that more people would potentially take the law into their own hands and it could very easily end in lawlessness
The advocates for stricter gun control argue that fewer guns lead to a lower rate of violent crime. This seems logical to me. If nobody has guns, nobody gets shot. This theory has never been fully put to the test, as no state has gone from allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons to outlawing the practice. Therefore, we don’t know if the crime rate would rise or fall. A compelling argument against stricter gun control laws is that violent criminals will obtain firearms anyway, legally or not, and average, law-abiding citizens will have no way of defending themselves.
To explore these arguments I invite you to take a look at two countries with incredibly low crime rates: Japan and Switzerland.
Japan is well known as having some of the strictest gun control laws. Shotguns (for hunting purposes) are the only firearms that citizens are allowed to own, and they can only obtain these after rigid background checks. Only about .6% of households have firearms (compared with 41% of U.S. households), and as a result they experience only 0.004 murders per 1,000 people (the U.S. is at about .04).
Switzerland, on the other hand, maintains only a very small standing army and relies on a militia system for national defense. Most adult males in the country are members of this militia and keep fully automatic, military assault rifles at home in case of a national emergency. But with all of these firearms, there are only .009 murders per 1,000 people.
Hmm…So the Japanese don’t have guns, and nobody kills anybody, and the Swiss have abundant guns, and nobody kills anybody.
The logical, tragic conclusion:
Guns don’t kill people…Americans do.
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
University of Minnesota Releases Global Warming Study: Summer Months Exhibit Significant Climate Change
On Tuesday a team of University of Minnesota Scientists, led by renowned climatologist Dr. Steven L. Bracken, released what is perhaps the benchmark study on the affects of global warming. After 5 years and $25 million spent studying the climate patterns of Minnesota and the surrounding upper Midwest region, they came to this startling and undeniable conclusion: the months of June, July, August, and sometimes early September are significantly warmer than the rest of the year.
The team of biologists, chemists, geologists, meteorologists, sociologists, flora and fauna-ologists and summer recreationologists came to this conclusion after observing temperature spikes, sweat formations, and the proliferation of green plant matter stemming from a decrease in snowfall and an increase in habitable living conditions during the months commonly defined as “summer.” “From November to February we would often see temperatures below zero. Starting in June the temperature would rise to well above 70, at times getting as high as the mid-90’s. That is a clear indication of widespread climate change” commented chief thermometer operationologist Dr. Barry T. Scuggins.
The full implications of this study are not yet known, but Bracken believes it paints an ominous picture of what the future may hold: “Imagine a world in which the cold, harsh winters that Midwesterners so cherish are limited to eight or nine months of the year. A world in which citizens must take refuge in lakes or large, chlorinated pools of water in order to escape the heat. A world in which a sun retardant must be applied to the skin to prevent burning. In two or three years such a world may become a horrifying reality.”
The team of biologists, chemists, geologists, meteorologists, sociologists, flora and fauna-ologists and summer recreationologists came to this conclusion after observing temperature spikes, sweat formations, and the proliferation of green plant matter stemming from a decrease in snowfall and an increase in habitable living conditions during the months commonly defined as “summer.” “From November to February we would often see temperatures below zero. Starting in June the temperature would rise to well above 70, at times getting as high as the mid-90’s. That is a clear indication of widespread climate change” commented chief thermometer operationologist Dr. Barry T. Scuggins.
The full implications of this study are not yet known, but Bracken believes it paints an ominous picture of what the future may hold: “Imagine a world in which the cold, harsh winters that Midwesterners so cherish are limited to eight or nine months of the year. A world in which citizens must take refuge in lakes or large, chlorinated pools of water in order to escape the heat. A world in which a sun retardant must be applied to the skin to prevent burning. In two or three years such a world may become a horrifying reality.”
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
The Modern Church
I’m a Christian, and I take what the Bible says to heart. For those of you who know me, this comes as no surprise. For those of you who don’t, good to meet you, and welcome to my blog.
That being said…
32 All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had. 33 With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and much grace was upon them all. 34 There were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales 35 and put it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need. 36 Joseph, a Levite from Cyprus, whom the apostles called Barnabas (which means Son of Encouragement), 37 sold a field he owned and brought the money and put it at the apostles' feet.
Acts 5: 32-37
A friend of mine (and Bethel University Seminary student) brought this passage to my attention the other day. A group of us have been discussing it at length via email, and it has me all fired up. We all know what will inevitably ensue.
I am blogger, hear me roar.
The implications of this passage are undeniable when applied to the modern church, which falls horribly short when stacked up against the apostles’ original intention for a church community.
We should absolutely be shaping the modern church in accordance with the Biblical church, yet it would be ludicrous to believe that the modern church is anything like the description given in acts. “There were no needy persons among them.” It’s laughable. Or maybe it’s just a matter of perspective. Perhaps the modern mega-church doesn’t want anybody to be “needy” of a better sound system, so they buy the best one possible. Maybe they don’t want anybody to be “needy” for comfort, so they buy padded pews and state of the art air conditioners. At least none of their well-off brethren will be “needy.”
Maybe you couldn’t tell (sarcasm doesn’t work well in writing), but I was being facetious. Sure a lot of church-goers tithe, but very few would be willing to share everything they had to make sure nobody was truly needy.
My favorite statement from this passage is: “32 All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had.” Can you imagine what that would look like? Can you imagine having that mentality? Unfortunately, it’s been lost. Even amongst the most generous givers, there is an undercurrent of “What’s God’s is God’s…but what’s mine is mine.”
“No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own.” Really let that sink in. I’ll be honest, it makes me uncomfortable. I like my possessions. I’m attached to them. I feel that I need them.
There are millions upon millions of people throughout the world that are truly needy, needy of water and food and love, the necessities of life, and the church has failed them.
How come?
It’s because of me and people like me. It’s because we’re greedy, we’re selfish and we’re self-involved. It’s the American way (and a nasty side effect of being fallen). In some ways I blame capitalism. It has engrained in us this idea that in order to survive we must scratch and claw and climb over others to get to the top. It brings out the worst of our competitive spirit and pits us against one another, as opposed to working together towards a greater good.
It’s also the fault of the church. Somewhere down the line the church quit being a community of believers caring for each other and turned into a political tool, a means of acquiring power. And the needy that the church was called to care for, those who had nothing to offer, were forgotten.
I can sense an exciting new movement amongst Evangelicals; a movement that aims to correct this failure. There is an energy that has caused large groups of people to spontaneously mobilize towards the same goal. This group no longer accepts what the church tells them or what the government tells them at face value. They look to the Bible for guidance. They look to the words of Jesus, the stuff highlighted in red because Jesus actually said it. It’s remarkable to see the things Jesus stood for.
I challenge you all to think about joining this movement. I don’t mean that everyone should run off and join a commune, but make deliberate efforts to better the world in the spirit of following Christ. I mean love someone for no reason, sacrifice something you think you need for someone who really needs, realize that our daily problems are profoundly insignificant when compared to the problems of the world. See that we each have a part to play, and no one said it would be painless.
Thanks for reading.
That being said…
32 All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had. 33 With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and much grace was upon them all. 34 There were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales 35 and put it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need. 36 Joseph, a Levite from Cyprus, whom the apostles called Barnabas (which means Son of Encouragement), 37 sold a field he owned and brought the money and put it at the apostles' feet.
Acts 5: 32-37
A friend of mine (and Bethel University Seminary student) brought this passage to my attention the other day. A group of us have been discussing it at length via email, and it has me all fired up. We all know what will inevitably ensue.
I am blogger, hear me roar.
The implications of this passage are undeniable when applied to the modern church, which falls horribly short when stacked up against the apostles’ original intention for a church community.
We should absolutely be shaping the modern church in accordance with the Biblical church, yet it would be ludicrous to believe that the modern church is anything like the description given in acts. “There were no needy persons among them.” It’s laughable. Or maybe it’s just a matter of perspective. Perhaps the modern mega-church doesn’t want anybody to be “needy” of a better sound system, so they buy the best one possible. Maybe they don’t want anybody to be “needy” for comfort, so they buy padded pews and state of the art air conditioners. At least none of their well-off brethren will be “needy.”
Maybe you couldn’t tell (sarcasm doesn’t work well in writing), but I was being facetious. Sure a lot of church-goers tithe, but very few would be willing to share everything they had to make sure nobody was truly needy.
My favorite statement from this passage is: “32 All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had.” Can you imagine what that would look like? Can you imagine having that mentality? Unfortunately, it’s been lost. Even amongst the most generous givers, there is an undercurrent of “What’s God’s is God’s…but what’s mine is mine.”
“No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own.” Really let that sink in. I’ll be honest, it makes me uncomfortable. I like my possessions. I’m attached to them. I feel that I need them.
There are millions upon millions of people throughout the world that are truly needy, needy of water and food and love, the necessities of life, and the church has failed them.
How come?
It’s because of me and people like me. It’s because we’re greedy, we’re selfish and we’re self-involved. It’s the American way (and a nasty side effect of being fallen). In some ways I blame capitalism. It has engrained in us this idea that in order to survive we must scratch and claw and climb over others to get to the top. It brings out the worst of our competitive spirit and pits us against one another, as opposed to working together towards a greater good.
It’s also the fault of the church. Somewhere down the line the church quit being a community of believers caring for each other and turned into a political tool, a means of acquiring power. And the needy that the church was called to care for, those who had nothing to offer, were forgotten.
I can sense an exciting new movement amongst Evangelicals; a movement that aims to correct this failure. There is an energy that has caused large groups of people to spontaneously mobilize towards the same goal. This group no longer accepts what the church tells them or what the government tells them at face value. They look to the Bible for guidance. They look to the words of Jesus, the stuff highlighted in red because Jesus actually said it. It’s remarkable to see the things Jesus stood for.
I challenge you all to think about joining this movement. I don’t mean that everyone should run off and join a commune, but make deliberate efforts to better the world in the spirit of following Christ. I mean love someone for no reason, sacrifice something you think you need for someone who really needs, realize that our daily problems are profoundly insignificant when compared to the problems of the world. See that we each have a part to play, and no one said it would be painless.
Thanks for reading.
Monday, May 14, 2007
The Insidious Adventures of the Insipid Carl Cahalan: Part 2
By the time Carl Cahalan was banished to International Falls he was under the impression that he was in the twilight of his life. By his estimation he had lived many fulfilling years and felt that he was no longer much use to anyone or anything (which was convenient considering his distaste for labor). With his life experience and wisdom he decided he would best serve the public by telling stories from a rocking chair perched on the deck of his modest log home on the far end of International Falls’ modest Main Street. And of course he would be working on the Great American Novel.
This was disarming to the hard working humble folks of International Falls, who would come by periodically to offer Carl a job at one of the nearby logging camps. Carl, you see, had dark wild hair, tightly curled and shiny as a seal’s hide, unweathered skin, smooth as a…seal’s hide, and round, mischievous eyes, dark as a…well I’ll be damned if Carl didn’t look just like a seal (excluding of course general uprightness and necessary appendages.) Carl’s sealish appearance had the overall effect of making him look young. Very young.
Needless to say, the good folks of International Falls didn’t like the idea of a young man frittering his time away, not working, raising who knows what brand of hell, and so they did their darndest to put him to work. Regardless, Carl would politely decline any job offered, explaining that it would be unwise for a brittle old man to be running around, shimmying up and down trees like a damn fool, and that he felt perfectly comfortable with his feet on the ground and his ass in a rocker.
He certainly didn’t need the money. Carl had made his fortune years before during an oil prospecting expedition to the heart of Siberia (but we’ll get to that later). He lived a simple life, had very few material needs (aside from his refusal to wear socks more than once) and had more than enough money to last him till the end of his days, which by his estimation was imminently approaching.
Truth be told, Carl had no idea how old he was. Due to his unusual childhood (but we’ll get to that later) Carl had no records of when he was born, and never learned to read a calendar (or tell time, for that matter). We’ll just say that Carl was neither as old as he thought nor as young as everyone else did.
Carl’s only friend in International Falls was his neighbor Mira Oglestein, whom he regarded as one of the world’s great beauties. To the average man she was powerfully repulsive, but her puckered lips and scaly skin aroused Carl’s sealish instincts, and upon meeting her Carl decided he would soon make her his wife.
Mira, in return, could more tolerate Carl than persuade herself to grow a genuine affinity for him. She had been widowed years before, and had vowed to let no man take her husband’s place. All of her affections were reserved for her cat, which she named Sam (after her husband). No one in International Falls had the heart to tell Mira that Sam had also died years before and that a kindly pet shop owner had been replacing the old tabby each time it kicked the bucket. Really, part of her must have known (no cat lives to 40), but she always said that age is purely mental.
Mira Oglestein was the only citizen of International Falls who knew the true story of what happened to Carl in Fort Frances, Canada. She had been told the story by no will of her own, and always regarded the sordid tale as no business of hers. But Carl loved her, and his honor forced him to be truthful with his future wife. When asked about Carl’s exile Mira would always say that it boiled down to a difference of opinions. The reality of the tale was, in fact, much more scandalous.
This was disarming to the hard working humble folks of International Falls, who would come by periodically to offer Carl a job at one of the nearby logging camps. Carl, you see, had dark wild hair, tightly curled and shiny as a seal’s hide, unweathered skin, smooth as a…seal’s hide, and round, mischievous eyes, dark as a…well I’ll be damned if Carl didn’t look just like a seal (excluding of course general uprightness and necessary appendages.) Carl’s sealish appearance had the overall effect of making him look young. Very young.
Needless to say, the good folks of International Falls didn’t like the idea of a young man frittering his time away, not working, raising who knows what brand of hell, and so they did their darndest to put him to work. Regardless, Carl would politely decline any job offered, explaining that it would be unwise for a brittle old man to be running around, shimmying up and down trees like a damn fool, and that he felt perfectly comfortable with his feet on the ground and his ass in a rocker.
He certainly didn’t need the money. Carl had made his fortune years before during an oil prospecting expedition to the heart of Siberia (but we’ll get to that later). He lived a simple life, had very few material needs (aside from his refusal to wear socks more than once) and had more than enough money to last him till the end of his days, which by his estimation was imminently approaching.
Truth be told, Carl had no idea how old he was. Due to his unusual childhood (but we’ll get to that later) Carl had no records of when he was born, and never learned to read a calendar (or tell time, for that matter). We’ll just say that Carl was neither as old as he thought nor as young as everyone else did.
Carl’s only friend in International Falls was his neighbor Mira Oglestein, whom he regarded as one of the world’s great beauties. To the average man she was powerfully repulsive, but her puckered lips and scaly skin aroused Carl’s sealish instincts, and upon meeting her Carl decided he would soon make her his wife.
Mira, in return, could more tolerate Carl than persuade herself to grow a genuine affinity for him. She had been widowed years before, and had vowed to let no man take her husband’s place. All of her affections were reserved for her cat, which she named Sam (after her husband). No one in International Falls had the heart to tell Mira that Sam had also died years before and that a kindly pet shop owner had been replacing the old tabby each time it kicked the bucket. Really, part of her must have known (no cat lives to 40), but she always said that age is purely mental.
Mira Oglestein was the only citizen of International Falls who knew the true story of what happened to Carl in Fort Frances, Canada. She had been told the story by no will of her own, and always regarded the sordid tale as no business of hers. But Carl loved her, and his honor forced him to be truthful with his future wife. When asked about Carl’s exile Mira would always say that it boiled down to a difference of opinions. The reality of the tale was, in fact, much more scandalous.
Friday, May 11, 2007
Tragedy Casts Shadow Over Hilarious Prank
A seemingly innocent office prank resulted in a grizzly scene early Monday morning as 57 year-old bank teller Elizabeth Cranton was crushed under the weight of 50,000 Sacagawea dollar coins.
A timeline of events, pieced together from employee interviews and limited forensic evidence, shows that the plan was first hatched on Wednesday of the previous week after Cranton made an off-the-cuff, disparaging statement about the Sacagawea dollar, stating that it was “unwieldy and too similar in size to the traditional quarter.” Upon hearing this remark, fellow teller, part Native American, and longtime dollar coin advocate Cheryl Pees-in-stream took it upon herself to teach a valuable lesson about criticizing the Sacagawea dollar, while adding some much needed humor to the typically dreary banking world.
Pees-in-stream presented the plan to shift supervisor Michael Langan. Langan, who had hated Cranton ever since she threw out his Applebee’s leftovers while cleaning out the employee refrigerator, quickly agreed, stating that it would be “good to give that bitch Cranton a taste of her own medicine.” How crushing a woman with thousands of coins is like mistakenly throwing out leftovers, we may never know.
The plan was initiated on Friday, when Langan placed the order for a surplus of Sacagawea dollars. When he and Pees-in-stream arrived Monday morning, the coins were waiting for them. They set up a crude booby-trap in the bank vault, rigging a crate to tip when the door was opened and showering the person below with the metallic currency.
Originally, Langan and Pees-in-stream had planned on using 10,000 coins with the intention of giving Cranton a minor concussion and teaching her an unforgettable lesson. Pees-in-stream later decided this may not be enough to get the point across, and added 10,000 more. The remaining 30,000 were added by Langan, who wanted Cranton to “feel the figurative crush of opening the refrigerator door and not seeing your Applebee’s leftovers by experiencing the literal crush of 50,000 Sacagawea dollar coins.”
Langan and Pees-in-stream both face charges of second-degree murder. Their trials are scheduled to begin later this month.
A timeline of events, pieced together from employee interviews and limited forensic evidence, shows that the plan was first hatched on Wednesday of the previous week after Cranton made an off-the-cuff, disparaging statement about the Sacagawea dollar, stating that it was “unwieldy and too similar in size to the traditional quarter.” Upon hearing this remark, fellow teller, part Native American, and longtime dollar coin advocate Cheryl Pees-in-stream took it upon herself to teach a valuable lesson about criticizing the Sacagawea dollar, while adding some much needed humor to the typically dreary banking world.
Pees-in-stream presented the plan to shift supervisor Michael Langan. Langan, who had hated Cranton ever since she threw out his Applebee’s leftovers while cleaning out the employee refrigerator, quickly agreed, stating that it would be “good to give that bitch Cranton a taste of her own medicine.” How crushing a woman with thousands of coins is like mistakenly throwing out leftovers, we may never know.
The plan was initiated on Friday, when Langan placed the order for a surplus of Sacagawea dollars. When he and Pees-in-stream arrived Monday morning, the coins were waiting for them. They set up a crude booby-trap in the bank vault, rigging a crate to tip when the door was opened and showering the person below with the metallic currency.
Originally, Langan and Pees-in-stream had planned on using 10,000 coins with the intention of giving Cranton a minor concussion and teaching her an unforgettable lesson. Pees-in-stream later decided this may not be enough to get the point across, and added 10,000 more. The remaining 30,000 were added by Langan, who wanted Cranton to “feel the figurative crush of opening the refrigerator door and not seeing your Applebee’s leftovers by experiencing the literal crush of 50,000 Sacagawea dollar coins.”
Langan and Pees-in-stream both face charges of second-degree murder. Their trials are scheduled to begin later this month.
Thursday, May 10, 2007
Take a Moment
What is this life if, full of care,
We have no time to stand and stare.
-- from "Leisure," by W.H. Davies
Back in January world renowned violin virtuoso Joshua Bell performed six classical pieces in a 43 minute span during the morning rush hour in the bustling L’Enfant Plaza in the heart of federal Washington D.C. Passers-by were frantically on their way to work with thoughts of meetings, bosses and emails on their minds; and he was, for a day, just a street performer. Never mind that the street performer was a prodigy that had played for countless international heads of state, or that he was playing Johann Sebastian Bach’s “Chaconne” (considered one of the most difficult violin pieces to master) on a $3.5 million Stradivarius, or that this performance would normally have cost hundreds of dollars to witness first hand.
It was an experiment. The idea wasn’t to cast light on America’s lack of culture by demonstrating that the majority of citizens can’t identify Joshua Bell (I wouldn’t have recognized him). It was a test of the power of the aesthetic over the mundane. Would preoccupied, rushed people take a moment out of their days to enjoy undeniable beauty, to appreciate undeniable greatness, to witness one of history’s greatest musicians playing one of history’s greatest pieces written by one of history’s greatest composers on one of history’s greatest instruments?
So what happened?
During that 43 minutes 1,097 people passed Joshua Bell (the whole thing is on video - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/04/AR2007040401721.html). Seven stopped to listen, for at least a minute. Twenty-seven gave money, most on the run. One woman, demographer Stacy Furukawa, recognized who Bell was. She positioned herself front and center and introduced herself when Bell was finished playing.
Fortunately violin prodigy Joshua Bell had a good sense of humor about the whole thing. Commenting on the $32.17 he made during the 43 minute performance, Bell laughed “Actually, that’s not so bad, considering. That's 40 bucks an hour. I could make an okay living doing this, and I wouldn't have to pay an agent."
So what’s my point? Like I said, the experiment was not created to deride the American populace for not recognizing Joshua Bell. Like I said, I wouldn’t have either (I would now).
But this experiment definitely comments on American culture. We are locked in a constant state of rushing. We bustle from one thing to the next without stopping to ask ourselves: to what end? Why are we in such a hurry? Life is a gift, and it is meant to be enjoyed.
I challenge each and every one of you to stop, rest a moment, and truly see (do this at least once a day). Appreciate something beautiful, listen to something that brings you peace, laugh at something silly, and don’t let anyone tell you that there’s no time for leisure. It’s the little, unexpected pleasures that make life worthwhile.
Thanks for reading.
We have no time to stand and stare.
-- from "Leisure," by W.H. Davies
Back in January world renowned violin virtuoso Joshua Bell performed six classical pieces in a 43 minute span during the morning rush hour in the bustling L’Enfant Plaza in the heart of federal Washington D.C. Passers-by were frantically on their way to work with thoughts of meetings, bosses and emails on their minds; and he was, for a day, just a street performer. Never mind that the street performer was a prodigy that had played for countless international heads of state, or that he was playing Johann Sebastian Bach’s “Chaconne” (considered one of the most difficult violin pieces to master) on a $3.5 million Stradivarius, or that this performance would normally have cost hundreds of dollars to witness first hand.
It was an experiment. The idea wasn’t to cast light on America’s lack of culture by demonstrating that the majority of citizens can’t identify Joshua Bell (I wouldn’t have recognized him). It was a test of the power of the aesthetic over the mundane. Would preoccupied, rushed people take a moment out of their days to enjoy undeniable beauty, to appreciate undeniable greatness, to witness one of history’s greatest musicians playing one of history’s greatest pieces written by one of history’s greatest composers on one of history’s greatest instruments?
So what happened?
During that 43 minutes 1,097 people passed Joshua Bell (the whole thing is on video - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/04/AR2007040401721.html). Seven stopped to listen, for at least a minute. Twenty-seven gave money, most on the run. One woman, demographer Stacy Furukawa, recognized who Bell was. She positioned herself front and center and introduced herself when Bell was finished playing.
Fortunately violin prodigy Joshua Bell had a good sense of humor about the whole thing. Commenting on the $32.17 he made during the 43 minute performance, Bell laughed “Actually, that’s not so bad, considering. That's 40 bucks an hour. I could make an okay living doing this, and I wouldn't have to pay an agent."
So what’s my point? Like I said, the experiment was not created to deride the American populace for not recognizing Joshua Bell. Like I said, I wouldn’t have either (I would now).
But this experiment definitely comments on American culture. We are locked in a constant state of rushing. We bustle from one thing to the next without stopping to ask ourselves: to what end? Why are we in such a hurry? Life is a gift, and it is meant to be enjoyed.
I challenge each and every one of you to stop, rest a moment, and truly see (do this at least once a day). Appreciate something beautiful, listen to something that brings you peace, laugh at something silly, and don’t let anyone tell you that there’s no time for leisure. It’s the little, unexpected pleasures that make life worthwhile.
Thanks for reading.
Wednesday, May 9, 2007
Patrick Corcoran Named "Zizzle-Zot Reader of the Month"
Congratulations to Bethel University graduate, internationally recognized Halo player, and all around kick-ass dude Patrick “P Corcs” Corcoran on being named May’s “Zizzle-Zot Reader of the Month.”
It was a fierce competition, but Pat was finally able to edge out some weird old guy who checks my blog hourly to win the prestigious award when he posted Zizzle-Zot, etc.’s first ever comment following the “Tequila Added to Axis of Evil” article. Pat, one of the blog’s most loyal fans, commented that he “liked the last two posts,” cementing his legacy as Zizzle-Zot, etc.’s first ever “Zizzle-Zot Reader of the Month.”
Past awards for Pat include All-MIAC honors for football during his years at Bethel, a top six finish for the “Coolest People to live in Arden Village East Townhouse D4 During the ’03-’04 School Year,” and winner of “Best at Remembering Lines from The Princess Bride.”
Congratulations, P Corcs, on this much deserved award.
It was a fierce competition, but Pat was finally able to edge out some weird old guy who checks my blog hourly to win the prestigious award when he posted Zizzle-Zot, etc.’s first ever comment following the “Tequila Added to Axis of Evil” article. Pat, one of the blog’s most loyal fans, commented that he “liked the last two posts,” cementing his legacy as Zizzle-Zot, etc.’s first ever “Zizzle-Zot Reader of the Month.”
Past awards for Pat include All-MIAC honors for football during his years at Bethel, a top six finish for the “Coolest People to live in Arden Village East Townhouse D4 During the ’03-’04 School Year,” and winner of “Best at Remembering Lines from The Princess Bride.”
Congratulations, P Corcs, on this much deserved award.
Tuesday, May 8, 2007
Tequila Added to Axis of Evil
President Bush called an emergency press conference Sunday evening to declare his newfound arch-nemesis Tequila the latest addition to the axis of evil. The potent spirit joins Iraq, Iran and North Korea as forces accused of threatening American interests.
After regaining consciousness in the White House rose garden following late night Cinco de Mayo festivities, Bush decided that something had to be done about this “growing threat to American security.” Following a meeting with his joint chiefs, at which Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice accused Tequila of attempting to dull the president’s ability to speak, drive, and make wise decisions, Bush gathered the press and addressed the nation.
As part of the campaign Bush is targeting all Agave plants and has issued a nonbinding resolution prohibiting worms from being placed in bottles. “Worms are insects. Insects and booze don’t belong together. It’s unsanitary, unappetizing, un-American. I ate one on a dare, and I lost my presidential dinner. Wasting food is bad for the economy. And then I passed out in a pool of my own vomit. I could have drowned. That’s a threat to my presidency,” Bush emphasized.
Bush has also sent over 600,000 troops, nearly triple the force used to occupy Iraq, on a mission to destroy the small Mexican town of Tequila, where a majority of the liquor is produced.
To put a face to the evil the administration has condemned the actions of former Van Halen singer turned Cabo Wabo Tequila distiller Sammy Hagar, accusing him of treason and issuing a warrant for his arrest.
After regaining consciousness in the White House rose garden following late night Cinco de Mayo festivities, Bush decided that something had to be done about this “growing threat to American security.” Following a meeting with his joint chiefs, at which Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice accused Tequila of attempting to dull the president’s ability to speak, drive, and make wise decisions, Bush gathered the press and addressed the nation.
As part of the campaign Bush is targeting all Agave plants and has issued a nonbinding resolution prohibiting worms from being placed in bottles. “Worms are insects. Insects and booze don’t belong together. It’s unsanitary, unappetizing, un-American. I ate one on a dare, and I lost my presidential dinner. Wasting food is bad for the economy. And then I passed out in a pool of my own vomit. I could have drowned. That’s a threat to my presidency,” Bush emphasized.
Bush has also sent over 600,000 troops, nearly triple the force used to occupy Iraq, on a mission to destroy the small Mexican town of Tequila, where a majority of the liquor is produced.
To put a face to the evil the administration has condemned the actions of former Van Halen singer turned Cabo Wabo Tequila distiller Sammy Hagar, accusing him of treason and issuing a warrant for his arrest.
Monday, May 7, 2007
The Insidious Adventures of the Insipid Carl Cahalan
Before Carl Cahalan set out to write the Great American Novel it never occurred to him to ask the Great American People whether they wanted their novel to be written. It didn’t bother him that he wasn’t American at all, having only immigrated to the border town of International Falls 3 months prior after he was involuntarily exiled from Fort Frances, Canada (but we’ll get to that later). Carl Cahalan never even stopped to wonder who would read the Great American Novel, as reading had become unfashionable at the turn of the century. I suppose none of these things mattered much. Carl Cahalan, you see, was a terrible writer.
Carl Cahalan’s problem when it came to writing was that he didn’t understand how to use a comma. Granted the comma is a slippery device and is perhaps the most misunderstood concept known to man, but Carl’s use was more odd than necessarily wrong (the result being that one could not put one’s finger on one’s aversion to Carl’s writing). Carl would use the comma, irregularly, to separate words that, did not need to be separated. He accredited this erratic behavior to his unique style and claimed it was a deliberate effort. But the affect it had on readers could best be described as panic as they were not given sufficient time to in or exhale completely between punctuations. Inevitably their heart rates would quicken, beads of sweat would shimmy down their brows, they would hyperventilate, pass out, and without proper medical attention die. Not a pleasant scene, particularly for a mild-mannered reader looking to enjoy a sunny afternoon.
The truly odd thing about Carl’s writing was that while he could not for the life of him grasp the comma, he used the semicolon effortlessly and flawlessly. It was a sign of Carl’s great genius that he could so elegantly plop this intimidating piece of punctuation between closely related independent clauses not joined by a coordinating conjunction. But Carl Cahalan hated the semicolon, which he regarded as pretentious and stuffy, and used it so sparsely that few ever saw his astounding ability firsthand (fortuitously, his sparing use of the mark was precisely the behavior that made his usage correct).
Carl’s strange use of punctuation, however, was not the thing that made Carl’s writing terrible. These are merely symptoms of a terrible writer. Carl’s primary problem when it came to writing was that he didn’t know where to start a story, and had even less sense where to end it. His tales were full of “such and such happened, but to understand that I need to take you back to such and such a time and such and such a place, but first I must tell you this much about such and such, which is to say...” It was really quite ingratiating to readers disposed towards linear stories, as American readers are.
Needless to say, Carl’s blend of eccentricities made him unpopular in the small town of International Falls, where the townspeople prided themselves on down to earthiness and a remarkable resiliency to the cold. They didn’t believe for a second that Carl could, as he claimed, write the Great American novel. This cynicism grew partly out of the fact that Carl was not American, but mostly out of the fact that Carl Cahalan (as everyone knew) was a terrible writer.
To be continued…
Carl Cahalan’s problem when it came to writing was that he didn’t understand how to use a comma. Granted the comma is a slippery device and is perhaps the most misunderstood concept known to man, but Carl’s use was more odd than necessarily wrong (the result being that one could not put one’s finger on one’s aversion to Carl’s writing). Carl would use the comma, irregularly, to separate words that, did not need to be separated. He accredited this erratic behavior to his unique style and claimed it was a deliberate effort. But the affect it had on readers could best be described as panic as they were not given sufficient time to in or exhale completely between punctuations. Inevitably their heart rates would quicken, beads of sweat would shimmy down their brows, they would hyperventilate, pass out, and without proper medical attention die. Not a pleasant scene, particularly for a mild-mannered reader looking to enjoy a sunny afternoon.
The truly odd thing about Carl’s writing was that while he could not for the life of him grasp the comma, he used the semicolon effortlessly and flawlessly. It was a sign of Carl’s great genius that he could so elegantly plop this intimidating piece of punctuation between closely related independent clauses not joined by a coordinating conjunction. But Carl Cahalan hated the semicolon, which he regarded as pretentious and stuffy, and used it so sparsely that few ever saw his astounding ability firsthand (fortuitously, his sparing use of the mark was precisely the behavior that made his usage correct).
Carl’s strange use of punctuation, however, was not the thing that made Carl’s writing terrible. These are merely symptoms of a terrible writer. Carl’s primary problem when it came to writing was that he didn’t know where to start a story, and had even less sense where to end it. His tales were full of “such and such happened, but to understand that I need to take you back to such and such a time and such and such a place, but first I must tell you this much about such and such, which is to say...” It was really quite ingratiating to readers disposed towards linear stories, as American readers are.
Needless to say, Carl’s blend of eccentricities made him unpopular in the small town of International Falls, where the townspeople prided themselves on down to earthiness and a remarkable resiliency to the cold. They didn’t believe for a second that Carl could, as he claimed, write the Great American novel. This cynicism grew partly out of the fact that Carl was not American, but mostly out of the fact that Carl Cahalan (as everyone knew) was a terrible writer.
To be continued…
Friday, May 4, 2007
A (Not so (Very)) Brief History of the Middle East Part 17: The Finale Part 2: So What Happened? (I Promise, This Really is the End)
Yesterday I expressed my support of the war…in theory. The actual handling of the war is another story. It has turned into a messy affair, been bungled at every step of the way and now exists as quite another beast.
Believe me when I tell you that I take what the media says with a grain of salt. The bottom line is that they have no real sense of the situation on the ground in Iraq. They can’t possibly know what is going on as they are too far removed. Sure they have embedded correspondents, but these reporters are privileged to security measures beyond the average soldier (and obviously far beyond the average citizen). The same can be said of politicians living 6,000 miles from the combat zone. Neither Bush and his staff nor the Democrat majority can have any real tangible sense of what is going on as they are just as removed as the media.
So who do we turn to for accurate war assessments? Clearly the commanders that are physically in Iraq leading the ground effort. And what are these men saying? Current Commander Gen. David Petraeus has said “military action is necessary to help improve security…but it is not sufficient.” He is referring to the need for diplomacy, but Bush, until recently, has stubbornly refused to deal with two of the most important players, Iran and Syria. Lt. Gen. John R. Vines, who led the coalition forces from 2005 to 2006, has stated that the Iraqi insurgency has the support of millions of Sunnis who reject a US installed government. This contradicts assessments made by Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney (who believed the insurgency consisted solely of Saddam loyalists and foreign Jihadists). Now retired Gen. Barry McCaffrey told the Pentagon in a private report that the “war is lost,” and that the US military would be unable to stop the growing violence claiming 1,000 Iraqi civilians a month.
Taking into account the tight-lipped nature of the military, this level of disclosure paints an ominous picture, particularly after Rumsfeld’s efforts to keep top military officials quiet. Consider the example of Army Chief of Staff Gen. Eric K. Shinseki, who admitted that he felt hundreds of thousands of troops would be need to secure Iraq. Rumsfeld’s offices called this estimate “wildly off the mark” before leaking word of Shinseki’s replacement 15 months before he was set to retire, both embarrassing and neutralizing him.
So what went wrong? In my (un-authoritative) assessment it boils down to two things. First, the US government and intelligence community did not, and have yet to, grasp the reality of the situation they walked into. Second, it has been suggested that the region was on the brink of crumbling anyway.
First things first. The architects of the war, bottom line, were working with incomplete blueprints. They failed to grasp the depth or nature of pre-existing conflicts, the character of the Iraqi people, and the vein of anti-Americanism that permeates the region. The Pentagon didn’t have a plan in place to secure and rebuild a country shattered by a war following years of oppression. American military commanders initially wanted 100,000 additional troops to aide in this effort. These troops were never provided. Central Command proposed a force of 380,000 to attack and occupy Iraq. Rumsfeld decided on 40,000. They finally compromised at 250,000, but most of these troops were either delayed or never sent as a result of Rumsfeld’s micromanagement.
The theory was that the war would be over and most of the troops could be brought home once Saddam was ousted. The CIA predicted that the Iraqi Army would turn against Saddam and that pro-American Iraqis would pick up the pieces. This never happened. We went in thinking that we would be welcomed by all of Iraq as liberators. True, some saw US troops that way, but it seems like the majority saw it as an unwanted foreign occupation and went to work defending their country. Others saw it as an opportunity to reignite age old sectarian conflicts and win influence for their respective sects. Others greedily saw it as an opportunity to take advantage of a power vacuum. And those who remain live with the consequences.
In addition to being ill-prepared when we invaded Iraq, we failed to recognize the delicate balance which the stability of Iraq was resting on before we became involved, which brings us to the second reason we find ourselves in a disaster area.
Ali Allawi, a man who knows what he is talking about (he has served as Minister of Defense and Minister of Finance since Saddam’s capture), recently published a memoir titled “The Occupation of Iraq: Winning the War, Losing the Peace.” While Allawi certainly questions the execution of the war, he asserts that Iraq was on the brink of implosion well before American troops arrived.
When the Coalition arrived in Baghdad on 9 April, 2003, it found a fractured and brutalized society, presided over by a fearful, heavily armed minority. The post-9/11 jihadi culture that was subsequently to plague Iraq was just beginning to take root. The institutions of the state were moribund; the state exhausted. The ideology that had held Ba'athist rule together had decayed beyond repair.
The problem stemmed from the precarious balance between the majority Shiites and the Saddam controlled Sunni dictatorship. By controlling the media, educational system and economy Saddam was able to eradicate any sense of Shiite identity. When the mass killings started following the Gulf War, all hope was lost for many Shiites.
In the years between the Gulf War and the invasion Iraq was plagued by unemployment, poverty, illiteracy, and the exodus of intellectuals. Saddam responded with theocratic rhetoric, calls for jihad, and “morals” campaigns. America was blamed by many for the plight of the country (perhaps rightfully so). To the Shiites, America was the country that allowed Saddam to stay in power and watched as he slaughtered their people. To Sunnis and Shiites alike, America was the country that imposed harsh sanctions which hurt the average citizen far more than the government.
Simply put, Iraq was a breeding ground for radicalism, hate, fear, and violence, and in large part America was to blame. The chaos in Iraq was inevitable, we just accelerated the process by creating a power vacuum.
This by no means clears America. The lack of planning, leadership and direction in the rebuilding effort is inexcusable, and we have a long ways to go in correcting those mistakes.
The problem is that both Republicans and Democrats need to quit playing politick and pull their heads out of their asses. Republicans need to understand the principle that violence begets violence. It will be impossible to beat Iraq into submission with force. The insurgency is fighting with the conviction that they are defending their faith and their country. That combination of beliefs will simply never back down, never quit, never lose. Diplomacy will be needed to settle disputes and broker agreements, and this may mean working with those we regard as enemies.
Democrats need to understand that a pullout date is not the answer, and to attach one to a war funding bill is political posturing at its worst. If they thought about it logically they would see what a terrible idea it is just like the Republicans. Bush actually had a good argument in his speech after he vetoed the bill when he pointed out that setting a pullout date simply tells violent radicals when America will be gone. All they have to do is gather strength and wait. Democrats also need to understand that leaving now would mean abandoning all of those average citizens, leaving their fates in the hands of brutal militants.
So is a troop surge the answer? I think it depends on the purpose of the troop surge. If we’re thinking we can send more soldiers to beat down the insurgency, in my opinion we’re dead wrong. If the troops go with the intention of aiding the rebuilding effort, training Iraqi troops and making the country safer for its citizens, then I think it might be the right play.
And I’m spent. I’ve given all I have on the war in Iraq, and perhaps more (definitely more than anyone wanted to know). “A (Very) Brief History of the Middle East” has drawn to a close.
It seems almost anticlimactic. Should there be a ceremony, should taps be played, should there be some grand gesture symbolizing the end of an epoch? No. I wash my hands of the whole messy affair and thank you for joining me in this effort to better understand the world around us.
Thanks for reading.
Believe me when I tell you that I take what the media says with a grain of salt. The bottom line is that they have no real sense of the situation on the ground in Iraq. They can’t possibly know what is going on as they are too far removed. Sure they have embedded correspondents, but these reporters are privileged to security measures beyond the average soldier (and obviously far beyond the average citizen). The same can be said of politicians living 6,000 miles from the combat zone. Neither Bush and his staff nor the Democrat majority can have any real tangible sense of what is going on as they are just as removed as the media.
So who do we turn to for accurate war assessments? Clearly the commanders that are physically in Iraq leading the ground effort. And what are these men saying? Current Commander Gen. David Petraeus has said “military action is necessary to help improve security…but it is not sufficient.” He is referring to the need for diplomacy, but Bush, until recently, has stubbornly refused to deal with two of the most important players, Iran and Syria. Lt. Gen. John R. Vines, who led the coalition forces from 2005 to 2006, has stated that the Iraqi insurgency has the support of millions of Sunnis who reject a US installed government. This contradicts assessments made by Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney (who believed the insurgency consisted solely of Saddam loyalists and foreign Jihadists). Now retired Gen. Barry McCaffrey told the Pentagon in a private report that the “war is lost,” and that the US military would be unable to stop the growing violence claiming 1,000 Iraqi civilians a month.
Taking into account the tight-lipped nature of the military, this level of disclosure paints an ominous picture, particularly after Rumsfeld’s efforts to keep top military officials quiet. Consider the example of Army Chief of Staff Gen. Eric K. Shinseki, who admitted that he felt hundreds of thousands of troops would be need to secure Iraq. Rumsfeld’s offices called this estimate “wildly off the mark” before leaking word of Shinseki’s replacement 15 months before he was set to retire, both embarrassing and neutralizing him.
So what went wrong? In my (un-authoritative) assessment it boils down to two things. First, the US government and intelligence community did not, and have yet to, grasp the reality of the situation they walked into. Second, it has been suggested that the region was on the brink of crumbling anyway.
First things first. The architects of the war, bottom line, were working with incomplete blueprints. They failed to grasp the depth or nature of pre-existing conflicts, the character of the Iraqi people, and the vein of anti-Americanism that permeates the region. The Pentagon didn’t have a plan in place to secure and rebuild a country shattered by a war following years of oppression. American military commanders initially wanted 100,000 additional troops to aide in this effort. These troops were never provided. Central Command proposed a force of 380,000 to attack and occupy Iraq. Rumsfeld decided on 40,000. They finally compromised at 250,000, but most of these troops were either delayed or never sent as a result of Rumsfeld’s micromanagement.
The theory was that the war would be over and most of the troops could be brought home once Saddam was ousted. The CIA predicted that the Iraqi Army would turn against Saddam and that pro-American Iraqis would pick up the pieces. This never happened. We went in thinking that we would be welcomed by all of Iraq as liberators. True, some saw US troops that way, but it seems like the majority saw it as an unwanted foreign occupation and went to work defending their country. Others saw it as an opportunity to reignite age old sectarian conflicts and win influence for their respective sects. Others greedily saw it as an opportunity to take advantage of a power vacuum. And those who remain live with the consequences.
In addition to being ill-prepared when we invaded Iraq, we failed to recognize the delicate balance which the stability of Iraq was resting on before we became involved, which brings us to the second reason we find ourselves in a disaster area.
Ali Allawi, a man who knows what he is talking about (he has served as Minister of Defense and Minister of Finance since Saddam’s capture), recently published a memoir titled “The Occupation of Iraq: Winning the War, Losing the Peace.” While Allawi certainly questions the execution of the war, he asserts that Iraq was on the brink of implosion well before American troops arrived.
When the Coalition arrived in Baghdad on 9 April, 2003, it found a fractured and brutalized society, presided over by a fearful, heavily armed minority. The post-9/11 jihadi culture that was subsequently to plague Iraq was just beginning to take root. The institutions of the state were moribund; the state exhausted. The ideology that had held Ba'athist rule together had decayed beyond repair.
The problem stemmed from the precarious balance between the majority Shiites and the Saddam controlled Sunni dictatorship. By controlling the media, educational system and economy Saddam was able to eradicate any sense of Shiite identity. When the mass killings started following the Gulf War, all hope was lost for many Shiites.
In the years between the Gulf War and the invasion Iraq was plagued by unemployment, poverty, illiteracy, and the exodus of intellectuals. Saddam responded with theocratic rhetoric, calls for jihad, and “morals” campaigns. America was blamed by many for the plight of the country (perhaps rightfully so). To the Shiites, America was the country that allowed Saddam to stay in power and watched as he slaughtered their people. To Sunnis and Shiites alike, America was the country that imposed harsh sanctions which hurt the average citizen far more than the government.
Simply put, Iraq was a breeding ground for radicalism, hate, fear, and violence, and in large part America was to blame. The chaos in Iraq was inevitable, we just accelerated the process by creating a power vacuum.
This by no means clears America. The lack of planning, leadership and direction in the rebuilding effort is inexcusable, and we have a long ways to go in correcting those mistakes.
The problem is that both Republicans and Democrats need to quit playing politick and pull their heads out of their asses. Republicans need to understand the principle that violence begets violence. It will be impossible to beat Iraq into submission with force. The insurgency is fighting with the conviction that they are defending their faith and their country. That combination of beliefs will simply never back down, never quit, never lose. Diplomacy will be needed to settle disputes and broker agreements, and this may mean working with those we regard as enemies.
Democrats need to understand that a pullout date is not the answer, and to attach one to a war funding bill is political posturing at its worst. If they thought about it logically they would see what a terrible idea it is just like the Republicans. Bush actually had a good argument in his speech after he vetoed the bill when he pointed out that setting a pullout date simply tells violent radicals when America will be gone. All they have to do is gather strength and wait. Democrats also need to understand that leaving now would mean abandoning all of those average citizens, leaving their fates in the hands of brutal militants.
So is a troop surge the answer? I think it depends on the purpose of the troop surge. If we’re thinking we can send more soldiers to beat down the insurgency, in my opinion we’re dead wrong. If the troops go with the intention of aiding the rebuilding effort, training Iraqi troops and making the country safer for its citizens, then I think it might be the right play.
And I’m spent. I’ve given all I have on the war in Iraq, and perhaps more (definitely more than anyone wanted to know). “A (Very) Brief History of the Middle East” has drawn to a close.
It seems almost anticlimactic. Should there be a ceremony, should taps be played, should there be some grand gesture symbolizing the end of an epoch? No. I wash my hands of the whole messy affair and thank you for joining me in this effort to better understand the world around us.
Thanks for reading.
Thursday, May 3, 2007
A (Very) Brief History of the Middle East Part 16: The Finale
“A (Very) Brief History of the Middle East” is drawing to a close. We have explored the region, done our best to understand the varied histories, beliefs, and politics behind the conflicts that have thrown Middle East into chaos, and are, I hope, that much closer to understanding the world around us.
So far I have done my best (I acknowledge there have been some slips) to provide an unbiased, objective assessment of the facts and situations currently embroiling the region, and it has been a struggle. I am but a humble blogger, dear readers, but as anyone who knows me can attest to, I’m an opinionated blogger. And now you will hear what I have to say, like it or not.
I am blogger, hear me roar.
4 Years, 3,000 Lives, $500 Billion: Was It Worth It?
I don’t support war on principle. I’ll admit that I’m a peace lover and wish that lives never needed to be lost. President Bush has faced harsh criticism since the outset of the invasion of Iraq that it was an unnecessary evil, that he has sacrificed lives and resources for ill-conceived war mongering.
Despite my anti-war stance, I do believe that there are at times necessary evils, and in certain instances war is necessary. I don’t believe that this was one of those instances. I don’t believe that the invasion of Iraq was necessary.
Saddam Hussein didn’t pose an imminent threat (any more so than in the rest of his 30 year reign of terror). His “cache of weapons of mass destruction” was never found and seemingly amounted to little more than poor intelligence (damn you and your “slam dunk” George Tenet). Attempts to tie Iraq to Al-Qaeda were weak at best, and Saddam had not committed any (more excessively) egregious human rights violations since the last time a Bush could have captured him during the first Gulf War.
That being said, I will now assert my unpopular opinion and say that I supported the invasion then, and I support the war now. Do I contradict myself? Good. I contain multitudes (Walt Whitman allusion. Read a book).
Let me attempt to clarify. No, I don’t believe the war was imminently necessary. If the US had not invaded Iraq, Saddam would still be ruling the country with his brand of tyrannical politics, the country would probably still be at the boiling point of sectarian violence (if it had not yet spilled over on its own), and the Iraqi picture would look much like it looked in the ten years following the Gulf War: Poverty stricken, oppressed, fear and hate-filled.
But do any of those things, directly, have anything to do with America? No, aside from oil (and realistically Iraq doesn’t supply us with that much of our oil anyway) we could very easily not give a damn about the problems in Iraq. America could have remained uninvolved, and remained safe…for a while.
The question is: how long do we imagine peace bought by isolationalism would have lasted? So many war protestors are screaming for us to stay out of world affairs, but as the world’s superpower the United States can’t afford to turn inward and ignore the plight of countries in which we have a vested interest. How quickly we forget Pearl Harbor, where the exact same isolationalist thinking made us a target of Japan.
Putting American interests aside, I do believe that while the Iraqi war has not gone according to plan, it has done some good for the international community. Let’s look at what was accomplished:
A despotic regime that had for years terrorized its citizens, killed hundreds of thousands, destroyed its nations economy, and been a consistent thorn in the side of the rest of the world was deposed. I really don’t care what your views on international politics are. I’m an ardent independent and I pride myself on seeing the bullshit on both sides of the line. Conservatives, you’re full of it for manipulating intelligence, for exaggerating or concocting Al-Qaeda ties and weapons caches to whip the nation into war frenzy. You lied to the American public, and I wouldn’t expect forgiveness. And let’s not forget your refusal to acknowledge that this war has gone to hell.
But don’t get too comfortable on that high-horse, liberal protestors. Your platform exalts justice for all, on caring for the poor and sick and suffering. Where was this compassion when it came to the citizens of Iraq, suffering and dying just like the men and women of Darfur? If we were to intervene in this genocide burdened region of Sudan,
would you support or protest? It’s a lose-lose for you. Either way you’re a hypocrite. If you support intervention, then there is no reason you shouldn’t support intervention in Iraq. If you protest, you stand directly against one of your core beliefs, the belief that America must help those who can’t help themselves. That’s a tough spot to be in.
I believe America has a responsibility to act on behalf of those who can’t protect themselves. It was inaction that led to 6 million Jews dying in the Holocaust, millions of Cambodians dying under the Khmer Rouge regime, and millions more dying in genocides plaguing African and Latin American nations. As the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. said “He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it.”
Saddam Hussein was exactly the breed of genocidal maniac that needs to be removed from power. Does anyone really believe that sanctions and diplomacy would have accomplished this end? He had already defied the UN, expelled weapons inspectors from the country, and violated the resolutions created following the first Gulf War. Saddam simply did not care about UN intervention because he knew the UN was weak. They are reluctant to agree to the use of force, and sanctions only hurt the people of Iraq, not Saddam himself.
So, while I do not think the invasion of Iraq was imminently necessary, I do believe it was justified (look forward to a future post about this absurd belief in “justifiability” concerning warfare).
There it is. As an idea, I support the invasion of Iraq. Surprised? Disgusted? Aghast? That’s fine. Tomorrow I’ll contradict myself with a counterpoint. Inner conflict…exciting.
Thanks for reading,
So far I have done my best (I acknowledge there have been some slips) to provide an unbiased, objective assessment of the facts and situations currently embroiling the region, and it has been a struggle. I am but a humble blogger, dear readers, but as anyone who knows me can attest to, I’m an opinionated blogger. And now you will hear what I have to say, like it or not.
I am blogger, hear me roar.
4 Years, 3,000 Lives, $500 Billion: Was It Worth It?
I don’t support war on principle. I’ll admit that I’m a peace lover and wish that lives never needed to be lost. President Bush has faced harsh criticism since the outset of the invasion of Iraq that it was an unnecessary evil, that he has sacrificed lives and resources for ill-conceived war mongering.
Despite my anti-war stance, I do believe that there are at times necessary evils, and in certain instances war is necessary. I don’t believe that this was one of those instances. I don’t believe that the invasion of Iraq was necessary.
Saddam Hussein didn’t pose an imminent threat (any more so than in the rest of his 30 year reign of terror). His “cache of weapons of mass destruction” was never found and seemingly amounted to little more than poor intelligence (damn you and your “slam dunk” George Tenet). Attempts to tie Iraq to Al-Qaeda were weak at best, and Saddam had not committed any (more excessively) egregious human rights violations since the last time a Bush could have captured him during the first Gulf War.
That being said, I will now assert my unpopular opinion and say that I supported the invasion then, and I support the war now. Do I contradict myself? Good. I contain multitudes (Walt Whitman allusion. Read a book).
Let me attempt to clarify. No, I don’t believe the war was imminently necessary. If the US had not invaded Iraq, Saddam would still be ruling the country with his brand of tyrannical politics, the country would probably still be at the boiling point of sectarian violence (if it had not yet spilled over on its own), and the Iraqi picture would look much like it looked in the ten years following the Gulf War: Poverty stricken, oppressed, fear and hate-filled.
But do any of those things, directly, have anything to do with America? No, aside from oil (and realistically Iraq doesn’t supply us with that much of our oil anyway) we could very easily not give a damn about the problems in Iraq. America could have remained uninvolved, and remained safe…for a while.
The question is: how long do we imagine peace bought by isolationalism would have lasted? So many war protestors are screaming for us to stay out of world affairs, but as the world’s superpower the United States can’t afford to turn inward and ignore the plight of countries in which we have a vested interest. How quickly we forget Pearl Harbor, where the exact same isolationalist thinking made us a target of Japan.
Putting American interests aside, I do believe that while the Iraqi war has not gone according to plan, it has done some good for the international community. Let’s look at what was accomplished:
A despotic regime that had for years terrorized its citizens, killed hundreds of thousands, destroyed its nations economy, and been a consistent thorn in the side of the rest of the world was deposed. I really don’t care what your views on international politics are. I’m an ardent independent and I pride myself on seeing the bullshit on both sides of the line. Conservatives, you’re full of it for manipulating intelligence, for exaggerating or concocting Al-Qaeda ties and weapons caches to whip the nation into war frenzy. You lied to the American public, and I wouldn’t expect forgiveness. And let’s not forget your refusal to acknowledge that this war has gone to hell.
But don’t get too comfortable on that high-horse, liberal protestors. Your platform exalts justice for all, on caring for the poor and sick and suffering. Where was this compassion when it came to the citizens of Iraq, suffering and dying just like the men and women of Darfur? If we were to intervene in this genocide burdened region of Sudan,
would you support or protest? It’s a lose-lose for you. Either way you’re a hypocrite. If you support intervention, then there is no reason you shouldn’t support intervention in Iraq. If you protest, you stand directly against one of your core beliefs, the belief that America must help those who can’t help themselves. That’s a tough spot to be in.
I believe America has a responsibility to act on behalf of those who can’t protect themselves. It was inaction that led to 6 million Jews dying in the Holocaust, millions of Cambodians dying under the Khmer Rouge regime, and millions more dying in genocides plaguing African and Latin American nations. As the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. said “He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it.”
Saddam Hussein was exactly the breed of genocidal maniac that needs to be removed from power. Does anyone really believe that sanctions and diplomacy would have accomplished this end? He had already defied the UN, expelled weapons inspectors from the country, and violated the resolutions created following the first Gulf War. Saddam simply did not care about UN intervention because he knew the UN was weak. They are reluctant to agree to the use of force, and sanctions only hurt the people of Iraq, not Saddam himself.
So, while I do not think the invasion of Iraq was imminently necessary, I do believe it was justified (look forward to a future post about this absurd belief in “justifiability” concerning warfare).
There it is. As an idea, I support the invasion of Iraq. Surprised? Disgusted? Aghast? That’s fine. Tomorrow I’ll contradict myself with a counterpoint. Inner conflict…exciting.
Thanks for reading,
Wednesday, May 2, 2007
A (Very) Brief History of the Middle East Part 15: What's in a Name?
Explainer: How do Muslims get their names?
This is not necessarily relevant to the conversation at hand, but it piqued my curiosity and I couldn’t leave it alone. There seems to be a pattern to the way Muslims are named, but what is it? I set out to discover the method. Here’s what I found:
The main part of a persons name is known as the “ism” (like Christian first names). They are typically either Arabic words with a significant meaning (ex: Amal=hope, Mahmud=praiseworthy) or a combination of “abd” (which means servant) and another word, usually one of the Muslim names for God (ex: Abdullah=servant to the God). One common mistake made with this part of the name is that “Abdul” is not in itself an “ism.” “Abdul” is a variation of “abd” and alone means only “servant of.” Also, any word following “Abdul” is a part of that man’s personal name, and the two need to be said in conjunction.
At times, a “kunya” precedes or replaces the “ism.” A “kunya” refers to the persons first born son (ex: Abu Karim=father of Karim).
The “nasab” indicates the patriarchal heritage using either “ibn” (no idea how to pronounce this) or “bin.” Both of these mean “son of.” So Osama bin Laden is “Osama, son of Laden.”
The “nisba” most closely resembles the Christian last name and indicates a person’s occupation, geographic home, or descent. This name will travel with families through many generations.
Interesting stuff…at least I thought so. Come back tomorrow. It is the beginning of the end.
Thanks for reading.
This is not necessarily relevant to the conversation at hand, but it piqued my curiosity and I couldn’t leave it alone. There seems to be a pattern to the way Muslims are named, but what is it? I set out to discover the method. Here’s what I found:
The main part of a persons name is known as the “ism” (like Christian first names). They are typically either Arabic words with a significant meaning (ex: Amal=hope, Mahmud=praiseworthy) or a combination of “abd” (which means servant) and another word, usually one of the Muslim names for God (ex: Abdullah=servant to the God). One common mistake made with this part of the name is that “Abdul” is not in itself an “ism.” “Abdul” is a variation of “abd” and alone means only “servant of.” Also, any word following “Abdul” is a part of that man’s personal name, and the two need to be said in conjunction.
At times, a “kunya” precedes or replaces the “ism.” A “kunya” refers to the persons first born son (ex: Abu Karim=father of Karim).
The “nasab” indicates the patriarchal heritage using either “ibn” (no idea how to pronounce this) or “bin.” Both of these mean “son of.” So Osama bin Laden is “Osama, son of Laden.”
The “nisba” most closely resembles the Christian last name and indicates a person’s occupation, geographic home, or descent. This name will travel with families through many generations.
Interesting stuff…at least I thought so. Come back tomorrow. It is the beginning of the end.
Thanks for reading.
Tuesday, May 1, 2007
A (Very) Brief History of the Middle East Part 14: The Much Anticipated Who's Who
I may be overly optimistic here. I can’t say for certain that this post has been “anticipated.” I’ve certainly built up the suspense (I’ve been talking about it since the beginning of the series). I assure you that the hype was completely unintentional, being the result of the unexpected length of this series, and chances are the Who’s Who will fall pathetically short of any expectations set for it.
In reality chances are so few people have been reading this blog or will read this blog, that it doesn’t make one bit of difference, so I’ll quit with the preface and get on with it.
The point of this post is to outline which of the Middle East’s major players are Sunni and which are Shiite. Hopefully when I’m finished we can get a better grasp on some of the sectarian conflicts taking place in the region.
Sunni: The Sunnis often consider themselves the more traditional sect. They consider Shiites to be heretics because they do not follow the originally chosen Caliphs. Worldwide, 90% of the world’s Muslims are Sunni.
Amongst the most prominent Sunni Muslims are Osama bin Laden (Making Al-Qaeda ostensibly a Sunni organization, though they are usually able to set aside sectarian differences for their common hatred of the west). Saddam Hussein and his Ba’ath party were also Sunni and were oppressive and often brutal to Shiites (one of the main causes of the sectarian conflicts that are going on now). This stems from the Iraq-Iran war, in which predominantly Shiite Iran tried to install its brand of Islamic rule in the rest of the Middle East.
Saudi Arabia is predominantly Sunni, as well as Syria (though they are ruled by a small Shiite subsect) and Kuwait.
Shiite: The Shiites consider the Sunnis to be heretics because their religious leaders are outside of the Mohammedan bloodline. As a whole, they have long been oppressed by the larger Sunni sect.
The most influential Shiite nation in the Middle East is Iran. They are suspected of funding most of the Shiite Militias in the region, including the Lebanese Hezbollah militia, the Palestinian Hamas militia, and Iraq’s Mhadi Army (the militia of Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr.)
In the first election in Iraq since Saddam Hussein was removed from power the Shiite’s (backed by al-Sadr) swept and now control the Iraqi political scene (Iraq is 60% Sunni, 40% Shiite, but Sunnis boycotted the election). Iraq’s Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, as well as most of the country’s military and police force, are Shiite. This has further fed sectarian distrust as Iraqi Sunnis accuse the police of acting as death squads.
If you want to know more about why so much sectarian conflict exists, check out this article from Time Magazine: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1592849-1,00.html
It’s very insightful, and definitely worth a look. I’ll be back tomorrow with an interesting explainer, and then wrap this series up.
Thanks for reading.
In reality chances are so few people have been reading this blog or will read this blog, that it doesn’t make one bit of difference, so I’ll quit with the preface and get on with it.
The point of this post is to outline which of the Middle East’s major players are Sunni and which are Shiite. Hopefully when I’m finished we can get a better grasp on some of the sectarian conflicts taking place in the region.
Sunni: The Sunnis often consider themselves the more traditional sect. They consider Shiites to be heretics because they do not follow the originally chosen Caliphs. Worldwide, 90% of the world’s Muslims are Sunni.
Amongst the most prominent Sunni Muslims are Osama bin Laden (Making Al-Qaeda ostensibly a Sunni organization, though they are usually able to set aside sectarian differences for their common hatred of the west). Saddam Hussein and his Ba’ath party were also Sunni and were oppressive and often brutal to Shiites (one of the main causes of the sectarian conflicts that are going on now). This stems from the Iraq-Iran war, in which predominantly Shiite Iran tried to install its brand of Islamic rule in the rest of the Middle East.
Saudi Arabia is predominantly Sunni, as well as Syria (though they are ruled by a small Shiite subsect) and Kuwait.
Shiite: The Shiites consider the Sunnis to be heretics because their religious leaders are outside of the Mohammedan bloodline. As a whole, they have long been oppressed by the larger Sunni sect.
The most influential Shiite nation in the Middle East is Iran. They are suspected of funding most of the Shiite Militias in the region, including the Lebanese Hezbollah militia, the Palestinian Hamas militia, and Iraq’s Mhadi Army (the militia of Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr.)
In the first election in Iraq since Saddam Hussein was removed from power the Shiite’s (backed by al-Sadr) swept and now control the Iraqi political scene (Iraq is 60% Sunni, 40% Shiite, but Sunnis boycotted the election). Iraq’s Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, as well as most of the country’s military and police force, are Shiite. This has further fed sectarian distrust as Iraqi Sunnis accuse the police of acting as death squads.
If you want to know more about why so much sectarian conflict exists, check out this article from Time Magazine: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1592849-1,00.html
It’s very insightful, and definitely worth a look. I’ll be back tomorrow with an interesting explainer, and then wrap this series up.
Thanks for reading.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
