Here are some comments of varying length on the many books I've read in the past two months. I should point out that the length of the comments do not necessarily correlate to how much I enjoyed the book; in fact some of the books that I enjoyed the most I wrote the least about.
The Time Ships by Stephen Baxter
The Time Ships, a science fiction novel by Stephen Baxter, is an “authorized sequel” to the classic The Time Machine by H.G. Wells. What most immediately impressive about Baxter’s work is that it really reads like it could have been written by Wells, at least as far as the writing style goes. Even many of the technologies that make appearances in the novel could have come from Wells (and indeed it seems that Baxter did deliberately include things from some of Wells’s other stories).
The Time Machine was the earliest of Wells’s classic stories and, along with The War of the Worlds, remains his best known work. Its ambiguous ending made it a good candidate for a sequel. The Time Ships is told from the perspective of the Time Traveller (like in the original book, his true name is never given), and begins with the events at the end of The Time Machine. Baxter’s portrayal of the Time Traveller is also consistent with that in the earlier book. In both novels, he is clever, persistent, and dedicated in the search for knowledge, but also impulsive, somewhat prone to violence, and has a few unreasoning prejudices. Baxter even neatly accounts for a major scientific inaccuracy in the original – since physicists at the time did not know of nuclear fusion, they believed the sun would burn out in a few tens of millions of years, an idea Wells incorporated into his novel. When the Time Traveller goes more than 30 million years into the future, he sees the sun burn out (we now know it will be several billion years before it reaches a red giant stage, and even longer before it completely burns out). In The Time Ships, what the Time Traveller witnessed is explained as a failed experiment in solar engineering.
I will not go into the plot of The Time Ships in detail here, except to say that it makes use of the idea of multiple histories existing simultaneously, and involves travel both far back and far forward in time, to histories (or universes) that progressively diverge from our own. Time travel stories have never been my favorite type of science fiction, but The Time Ships is engaging and well done, and I would recommend it to anyone who likes The Time Machine (which should certainly be read first) and other works by H.G. Wells.
Gideon’s Wall by Greg Kurzawa [Gage Kurricke]
Gideon’s Wall is a fantasy novel by Gage Kurricke, writing under the pen name Greg Kurzawa. This novel is quite different from most others in the genre, and that is one of the keys to its success. The frame story is that of an archeologist (he calls himself an archaist) who travels to the wasteland that was once the empire of Shallai, before it was destroyed virtually overnight in an unknown disaster. The archaist’s investigations reveal the tale behind the fall of Shallai, told mostly through the eyes of Del, a soldier sent as an ambassador to the Bedu, a people who resemble the Arabs of our world (even their religion has much in common with Islam). He gradually comes to identify closely with them, becoming friends with their chief ruler and standing by them when they are threatened with annihilation. Though the reader knows the ultimate fate of Shallai, the tale of how it happened is riveting, Del is an interesting and sympathetic character, and the Bedu are a colorful people. A good read for anyone who likes fantasy, history, or stories about different cultures.
The Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels and other writings by Karl Marx
Over the past few years, one type of bedtime reading I have been doing is of famous religious and philosophical works (because I’m interested in finding out what they have to say first hand, and because most of them are pretty effective at inducing sleep). In this time I have read most of the Bible, the Koran, a selection of the Upanishads, the Bhagavad-Gita, a selection of Buddhist scriptures, the Analects of Confucius, the Dao De Jing (Tao Te Ching), The Republic by Plato, Aristotle’s Politics, a little bit of The Book of Mormon, A History of God (discussed in an earlier blog) and more that nature (the majority of this I read before starting this blog, which is why I have not written about it, though perhaps I may do so in the future). My most recent reading of this sort was of a central work of what some have called a secular religion – Marxism.
The Communist Manifesto, a collaboration between Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels (though Engels himself said Marx deserved most of the credit for the work), was first published in early 1848, the same year that revolutions against the conservative aristocratic regimes of the day swept through much of Europe (a situation paralleled to some degree by this year’s revolutions in the Arab world). The Manifesto itself is quite short (less than 40 pages in the edition I have), but the book I read also included an essay by Mark entitled The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte and a selection from Mark’s Capital (Das Capital) that the editor gave the name “The General Law of Capitalist Accumulation”.
I found a number of Marx’s criticisms of the capitalist system valid, and he does raise issues worth thinking about. But his economic theory, while complex, is nevertheless far too simple to be an accurate reflection of the real world (though the same could be said for capitalist economic theory in general and certain aspects of it in particular). To some degree, it is clear that Marxism is a product of its times, as he was clearly basing his theories on conditions prevailing in the mid-19th century, which were quite different – and much worse for workers, at least in what is now the developed world – from today (though the essential point that the labor of workers is devoted primarily to the benefit of their employers remains valid). His view of history, specifically the idea of economic determinism (under which the prevailing economic system determines everything else about a society, including its political system), is obviously a gross oversimplification, and fails to adequately describe many historical societies. Likewise, while I can appreciate the argument that a total transformation in the society is difficult or even impossible to accomplish in a piecemeal fashion, I have a problem with his insistence on the necessity of violent revolution.
Nevertheless, as I said, he does have a number of thought-provoking ideas. He also made an interesting statement in The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte that applies very well to the sort of nonsensical statements made in the last few years by some on the American right. Describing the situation in France in 1848, in which the more conservative groups united to crush the more radical revolutionaries, he says: “Every demand for the most simple bourgeois financial reform, for the most ordinary liberalism, for the most commonplace republicanism, for the flattest democracy, is forthwith punished as an ‘assault on society’, and is branded as ‘socialism’.” This sounds like a perfect description of the criticism of many of President Obama’s policies. It’s worth noting that to Marx himself, not only were things like “the most simple bourgeois financial reform” or “the most ordinary liberalism” far short of “socialism”, but even socialism as he defined it fell far short of the sort of revolution he advocated. This was why he and Engels rejected the label “socialist” in favor of “communist” and included a critical look at several types of socialists in The Communist Manifesto. Likewise, Marx would almost certainly take the same view of Obama as that expressed in the quote above, as falling far short of even socialism, let alone Marxism, and in this he would be completely correct.
The Aeneid by Virgil
The Aeneid, written in the 1st century BCE by Publius Vergilius Maro (better known as Virgil), is perhaps the most famous work of literature from ancient Rome; it is certainly the most famous Roman epic poem. Perhaps due to my cultural background, the epic poem has never been a favorite genre with me (that they were originally meant to be read out loud may also have something to do with it), though the stories themselves are often entertaining enough (I particularly enjoyed a prose translation of Homer’s Odyssey that I read a few years ago). Given this, it is no wonder that I found parts of the Aeneid slow going. The endless recounting of the deeds of various, often obscure characters can get a bit tedious at times, and the overly patriotic (to me at least) view of the Rome that Aeneas is supposed to be the ultimate ancestor of (though that was a pure fiction invented by the Romans after they came into contact with the Greeks) doesn’t help. But there are certainly some well-written passages, and the story picks up somewhat in the second half, which, with its emphasis on battles between the Trojans led by Aeneas and his allies on the one hand and various Italian opponents on the other, is the part most clearly influenced by Homer’s Iliad, down to the very graphic descriptions of the fatal wounds suffered by participants in the battles.
Other notable parts of the book are Aeneas’s encounter with Dido, the semi-legendary founder of Carthage, and his descent into the underworld to see his father, which provided a model for Dante’s Divine Comedy (in which Virgil served as Dante’s guide through Hell). This latter passage contains a look forward (from Aeneas’s perspective) at the history of Rome, including a lengthy, rather overblown lament over the death of the young Marcellus, the prospective heir of Virgil’s patron, the emperor Augustus, but also a few lines implicitly criticizing Augustus’s adoptive father Julius Caesar and his opponent Pompey for the civil wars they fought, even particularly calling on Caesar to “be the first to show forbearance” and “cast down the weapon from [his] hand.”
The Road by Cormac McCarthy
The Road, a novel by Cormac McCarthy, is set in a grim post-apocalyptic world dominated by sadistic cannibals and slavers and darkened by a permanent cloud cover (the conditions seem to be those of nuclear winter, as temperatures have dropped to a level that is barely survivable, especially in winter). It is the story of a father and son, never identified by name (they are referred to only as “the man” and “the boy”), who are traveling south to find a place where they have some hope of survival. McCarthy’s prose is made up of spare, fragmented sentences with minimal punctuation (except for periods): “The road was empty. Below in the valley the still gray serpentine of a river. Motionless and precise. Along the shore a burden of dead reeds. Are you okay? he said. The boy nodded.” The world he depicts is a terrible, bleak place in which very little is left alive.
The theme at the heart of the novel is the struggle between the good and the evil in human nature. On the one hand are the cannibals and other sadistic people who seem to dominate the surviving population (not that the man and boy encounter a great many people in their travels) – as the boy calls them, “the bad guys”. On the other hand, there are the man and the boy, who represent what the boy calls “the good guys”. More particularly good is represented by the boy himself, who often acts as the man’s conscience, urging him to good deeds and against evil ones when he’d rather do whatever seems most conducive to their survival (not that he always goes along with what the boy says).
While it isn’t necessarily the easiest or most purely enjoyable novel I’ve read recently, there’s no question that The Road is well written and deserving of much of the praise it received. Its picture of a destroyed ecology also makes it a worthwhile read from an environmental standpoint. It is rather depressing, but it ends on a note of hope (though this comes after a particularly low point, and the hope offered is limited in scope). It’s an excellent choice for those who enjoy good literary fiction.
Casino Royale by Ian Fleming
Casino Royale was the first of Ian Fleming’s novels featuring James Bond, the world’s most famous fictional spy. Despite being familiar with the character, I had never actually read a James Bond novel, and I’ve only seen one or two of the many James Bond movies. The book was well-paced and entertaining, though it has a very 1950s flavor to it (it was published in 1953). Bond is depicted as more than a little sexist, though he is aware of a certain degree of “hypocrisy” in his attitude toward women. The cool competence I tend to associate with the character was on display in a key episode at the gaming table in the casino, but was otherwise surprisingly absent. This isn’t to say he was bumbling, but most of his successes outside the casino came from luck or fortitude rather than from his own actions. He survived one attack purely by luck, and while his ability to endure torture (in a particularly nasty episode) was characterized as exceptional, his ultimate survival again was due to luck. He was also fooled more than once. In another interesting episode, he expresses doubt about the righteousness of his job, questioning whether the people he operates against are really bad people just because they work for their country the same way he does for his, though ultimately his friend and his own experiences lead him to conclude that “there are plenty of really black targets” working for the other side (i.e., the Soviets), so as long as he targets them, he will be doing good.
The Dark Elf Trilogy by R.A. Salvatore
The Dark Elf Trilogy is an omnibus edition of three novels by R.A. Salvatore, Homeland, Exile, and Sojourn (I picked up my copy for free, as it was left behind by the friend of a friend when he had to leave Taiwan at short notice). They feature the character Drizzt Do'Urden, who is, as the title suggests, a dark elf, a member of the race also known as drow. The drow are evil subterranean-dwelling elves, originally created by Gary Gygax for the role-playing game Dungeons & Dragons (I have copies of the classic adventure modules in which they first appeared). Though the dark elves are characterized as thoroughly evil, Drizzt is an exception, a drow with a conscience that drives him to do good. Indeed, the theme of the novels is basically Drizzt’s struggle to come to understand his conscience and find a way to live in accordance with it. In this respect, if no other, the novel resembles The Road.
But while these novels are entertaining enough as adventure stories, in other respects they were somewhat disappointing. I wasn’t particularly impressed by Salvatore’s writing, but a bigger problem was the believability of the characters, most particularly Drizzt himself. In part this is not exactly Salvatore’s fault, as the problem can be traced to D&D and even to some extent to the great Tolkien himself, blasphemous as it may be to say it. In D&D, certain types of creatures are seen as inherently evil, including the drow and races such as orcs, and others are inherently good, such as deep (subterranean-dwelling) gnomes and surface elves (though there are quite a few exceptions in these cases). This to some degree reflects the situation in Tolkien’s work, where orcs are always evil and elves and halflings (hobbits) are almost always good. But how can a race of creatures be inherently good or evil? Is their moral outlook inborn, or a product of their society, or some combination of the two? Salvatore tries to grapple with this question, with upbringing playing the most obvious role, but the problem is that Drizzt (and his father Zaknafein, who becomes something of a model for him) are too dramatically different from all the other drow in terms of moral outlook to be credible (and in their case the implication is that their moral sense is inborn and strongly resistant to perversion through their upbringing). Most implausibly, some of Drizzt’s supposedly instinctive moral standards are based on rather conventional American ideas of what is good, such as when he is revolted by witnessing a sexual orgy among the drow (this to some extent reflects Gygax, who portrayed the drow as being “sexually depraved”, with both of them implying that sexual promiscuity is somehow evil in and of itself) or when he wishes he could have brought a marauding humanoid before a court of law (given his background, how would the idea even occur to him?). This flaw dooms Salvatore’s laudable attempt to write a set of D&D-based novels with philosophical depth.
Inca by Suzanne Alles Blom
Suzanne Alles Blom’s novel Inca is an alternate history, a historical novel in which the course of events is altered from what occurred in real history. I have read a number of novels of this sort, the most recent being The Difference Engine (which I discussed in a past blog post). In Inca, Blom changes a number of things about the initial encounters between the Inca and the Spanish, allowing her to speculate on how things might have happened differently.
Overall, this novel is a well-done example of its genre. The story is told from the Inca point of view, and Blom succeeds in creating a vivid picture of Inca society (whether it is completely accurate I can’t say, not knowing enough about the Inca) and allowing the reader to see the Spanish the way the Inca might have seen them. Her portrayal of the Inca might be slightly idealized (though she does refer to some bloody deeds in their history) and her portrayal of the Spanish might strike some as overly negative (though even her Inca characters do note a few talents that the Spanish have aside from war), but from what I know of that period, I would say it is largely accurate. Her main character, Exemplary Fortune (known to history as Atahualpa, the last Inca ruler), is perhaps depicted as a better and wiser person than he probably was in real life, though he does seem to have been both more likeable and a better leader than his half-brother Huáscar (Cable in the novel), who he overcame in the civil war that divided the Inca immediately before the Spanish conquest in the real world (here the civil war is averted). But since we know very little for certain about any of these people, this is not a major problem. I recommend this book, with the caveat that it ends without the ultimate conflict being resolved, and it seems that Blom has not yet written a sequel.
Dirk Gently’s Holistic Detective Agency by Douglas Adams
Dirk Gently’s Holistic Detective Agency is a novel by Douglas Adams, best known as the creator of the science fiction comedy classic The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy. While the majority of Dirk Gently is set on Earth in the present day, it still involves travel through both time and space, as well as some supernatural elements (specifically ghosts). While this book doesn’t contain quite as many laugh-out-loud bits as the Hitchhiker books, it is still quite funny, and the plot is more coherent. While not absolutely necessary, some knowledge of the poetry of Samuel Taylor Coleridge is helpful for full enjoyment of the novel (though I must confess I only remember the poems in question vaguely myself). Interestingly, while Dirk Gently is the title character and Adams went on to write a second novel featuring him, he doesn’t actually appear until nearly halfway through; his friend Richard MacDuff is much the chief protagonist as he is (MacDuff appears from almost the beginning). Another interesting feature of the novel is that it features the Electric Monk, an amusing Hitchhikeresque creation that the band of the same name (see also this site) took its name from. Definitely recommended for any who like the Hitchhiker books or just humor, science fiction and good times in general.
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
Saturday, May 21, 2011
Sex Scandals
Two major news stories in the last week or so have involved the sexual activities of prominent politicians. Taking the more recent story first (though the actual sex took place a long time ago), film star/former Mr. Universe/former governor of California Arnold Schwarzenegger admitted to having fathered a child with a member of his household staff over a decade ago and having kept it a secret even from his wife Maria Shriver, who is now separated from him, having moved out their mansion after learning of the affair. Judging from the number of headlines it generated, this became a huge news story for at least a few days, and Schwarzenegger has even been forced to put his various post-gubernatorial entertainment projects on hold.
Obviously Schwarzenegger's wife has a right to be angry at him for his failure to be honest with her, and given that by some accounts he can be self-centered and conceited, among other faults, it is no surprise that she regarded this as the final straw (that they stayed together for 25 years is actually fairly impressive, especially for a Hollywood marriage). But in other ways, since the actual affair took place long ago, it is really water under the bridge. Certainly no one who is not actually part of the family (or perhaps a close friend who might have reason to resent being lied to) should get worked up about it. I almost get the impression that some people think it's a bigger deal because he actually had a child out of wedlock. I'm sure people would still be criticizing him if he had admitted to having an affair more than a decade ago, but I suspect not as much. But this is completely illogical; having an affair is not any more immoral because you have a child as a result, unless you then fail to provide for the child (it is my understanding that Schwarzenegger has financially supported since his birth, so that is not really the case here -- it could be argued that he also was responsible for acting as a father to the boy, but as his former staffer married not long afterward, the boy had a father).
Of course many people will condemn Schwarzenegger simply for having an extramarital affair, as many other public figures have been condemned in the past. But really that is mainly the business of the married couple. Some couples even have an understanding that allows occasional flings (Schwarzenegger himself was supposedly in an open relationship with another woman at the time he started seeing Shriver). Where Schwarzenegger does probably deserve moral condemnation is for alleged actions that were reported in the media a long time ago, namely that the accusation that he groped a number of different women who didn't in any way welcome his attentions. Having an affair with a willing partner (I am assuming here that the woman he had a child with was not in any way pressured into the relationship -- if she was, that's an entirely different matter) is far less immoral than forcing yourself on someone who is unwilling, even if you don't actually have sex with them.
This brings us to the other recent political sex scandal, the arrest of IMF head and prospective candidate for French president, Dominique Strauss-Kahn, for sexual assault. If the facts of the case are at similar to what has been reported, then this was not even a remotely consensual encounter. A few news reports have seemed to generalize about the accepting French attitude toward the sexual behavior of their leading politicians. I would have assumed for the most part, though, that this mostly extends to having consensual extramarital affairs (including one night stands), including having children outside of marriage like Arnold Schwarzenegger (80s era president Mitterrand being the most prominent case). I'm not sure how much they are prepared to overlook sexual assault, which is a completely different thing.
I have read that a few French papers have made comments about American prudishness when talking about this case. While I would certainly agree that Americans tend to be prudish, if those making these comments accept that Strauss-Kahn actually acted in the way he is accused of acting, then there is something seriously wrong with them. If he had been arrested for, say, solicitation of prostitution, they would have a right to complain about American prudishness. Sexual assault, however, is something completely different. It is true that some of Strauss-Kahn's supporters in France and elsewhere have claimed it was a set-up. This possibility has to be acknowledged, and there should be a presumption of innocence until the case goes to court, but it certainly seems that Strauss-Kahn has a history that makes the accusation somewhat more credible. True, he hasn't been accused of behavior quite this violent, but at least one female journalist only reluctantly refrained from pressing charges over an encounter with him. If French politicians go around seducing willing women, I wouldn't say the French are that wrong in overlooking it. But if they overlook assault, they need a serious readjustment of their moral standards.
While we will have to hope that the truth of this particular case will come out in court, the main point is that people have to distinguish between consensual and non-consensual acts. While a certain degree of condemnation may be deserved in a case like Schwarzenegger's, mostly for the dishonesty involved, it isn't really a big deal, and he certainly shouldn't have his career destroyed because of it (I'm referring here to the recently revealed affair and child, not the groping, which is worse). For that matter, Eliot Spitzer deserved to be pilloried more for his hypocrisy in aggressively pursuing call girl rings then for the mere fact of paying a call girl for sex. But Strauss-Kahn, if guilty, not only deserves to have his career ruined, but deserves to go to prison, as do, say, prominent athletes who force themselves on women (I seem to recall a number of stories of this sort in recent years as well). Unfortunately, many people are either prone to condemn others out of hand for any sort of sexual activity that doesn't fit their personal standards of acceptable behavior, whereas others will excuse even assault if committed by those they highly admire (or have an interest in defending). Neither response is reasonable, though they both conform to the usual contradictory attitudes people have about sex.
[Update: Here's an article about the understandable reaction of many women in France to the absurd remarks made by some French political and media figures in their initial responses to the Strauss-Kahn arrest. Also, I read that at least one hotel worker says he asked her to come to his room when she got off work, though she declined. This, however, proves little one way or another about his guilt, since there is nothing really wrong with hitting on somebody if you don't use force or coercion, and you don't persist after you've been turned down. Again, what really matters is whether he crossed the line into forcing or try to force an unwilling participant into engaging in sexual acts with him. Incidents like the alleged one with the journalist a few years ago are more indicative of a pattern of behavior than simply flirting with members of the hotel staff.]
Obviously Schwarzenegger's wife has a right to be angry at him for his failure to be honest with her, and given that by some accounts he can be self-centered and conceited, among other faults, it is no surprise that she regarded this as the final straw (that they stayed together for 25 years is actually fairly impressive, especially for a Hollywood marriage). But in other ways, since the actual affair took place long ago, it is really water under the bridge. Certainly no one who is not actually part of the family (or perhaps a close friend who might have reason to resent being lied to) should get worked up about it. I almost get the impression that some people think it's a bigger deal because he actually had a child out of wedlock. I'm sure people would still be criticizing him if he had admitted to having an affair more than a decade ago, but I suspect not as much. But this is completely illogical; having an affair is not any more immoral because you have a child as a result, unless you then fail to provide for the child (it is my understanding that Schwarzenegger has financially supported since his birth, so that is not really the case here -- it could be argued that he also was responsible for acting as a father to the boy, but as his former staffer married not long afterward, the boy had a father).
Of course many people will condemn Schwarzenegger simply for having an extramarital affair, as many other public figures have been condemned in the past. But really that is mainly the business of the married couple. Some couples even have an understanding that allows occasional flings (Schwarzenegger himself was supposedly in an open relationship with another woman at the time he started seeing Shriver). Where Schwarzenegger does probably deserve moral condemnation is for alleged actions that were reported in the media a long time ago, namely that the accusation that he groped a number of different women who didn't in any way welcome his attentions. Having an affair with a willing partner (I am assuming here that the woman he had a child with was not in any way pressured into the relationship -- if she was, that's an entirely different matter) is far less immoral than forcing yourself on someone who is unwilling, even if you don't actually have sex with them.
This brings us to the other recent political sex scandal, the arrest of IMF head and prospective candidate for French president, Dominique Strauss-Kahn, for sexual assault. If the facts of the case are at similar to what has been reported, then this was not even a remotely consensual encounter. A few news reports have seemed to generalize about the accepting French attitude toward the sexual behavior of their leading politicians. I would have assumed for the most part, though, that this mostly extends to having consensual extramarital affairs (including one night stands), including having children outside of marriage like Arnold Schwarzenegger (80s era president Mitterrand being the most prominent case). I'm not sure how much they are prepared to overlook sexual assault, which is a completely different thing.
I have read that a few French papers have made comments about American prudishness when talking about this case. While I would certainly agree that Americans tend to be prudish, if those making these comments accept that Strauss-Kahn actually acted in the way he is accused of acting, then there is something seriously wrong with them. If he had been arrested for, say, solicitation of prostitution, they would have a right to complain about American prudishness. Sexual assault, however, is something completely different. It is true that some of Strauss-Kahn's supporters in France and elsewhere have claimed it was a set-up. This possibility has to be acknowledged, and there should be a presumption of innocence until the case goes to court, but it certainly seems that Strauss-Kahn has a history that makes the accusation somewhat more credible. True, he hasn't been accused of behavior quite this violent, but at least one female journalist only reluctantly refrained from pressing charges over an encounter with him. If French politicians go around seducing willing women, I wouldn't say the French are that wrong in overlooking it. But if they overlook assault, they need a serious readjustment of their moral standards.
While we will have to hope that the truth of this particular case will come out in court, the main point is that people have to distinguish between consensual and non-consensual acts. While a certain degree of condemnation may be deserved in a case like Schwarzenegger's, mostly for the dishonesty involved, it isn't really a big deal, and he certainly shouldn't have his career destroyed because of it (I'm referring here to the recently revealed affair and child, not the groping, which is worse). For that matter, Eliot Spitzer deserved to be pilloried more for his hypocrisy in aggressively pursuing call girl rings then for the mere fact of paying a call girl for sex. But Strauss-Kahn, if guilty, not only deserves to have his career ruined, but deserves to go to prison, as do, say, prominent athletes who force themselves on women (I seem to recall a number of stories of this sort in recent years as well). Unfortunately, many people are either prone to condemn others out of hand for any sort of sexual activity that doesn't fit their personal standards of acceptable behavior, whereas others will excuse even assault if committed by those they highly admire (or have an interest in defending). Neither response is reasonable, though they both conform to the usual contradictory attitudes people have about sex.
[Update: Here's an article about the understandable reaction of many women in France to the absurd remarks made by some French political and media figures in their initial responses to the Strauss-Kahn arrest. Also, I read that at least one hotel worker says he asked her to come to his room when she got off work, though she declined. This, however, proves little one way or another about his guilt, since there is nothing really wrong with hitting on somebody if you don't use force or coercion, and you don't persist after you've been turned down. Again, what really matters is whether he crossed the line into forcing or try to force an unwilling participant into engaging in sexual acts with him. Incidents like the alleged one with the journalist a few years ago are more indicative of a pattern of behavior than simply flirting with members of the hotel staff.]
Sunday, May 8, 2011
The Death of Osama bin Laden
Last week's biggest news story was the death of al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden at the hands of a US special operations team. The story has a number of interesting aspects to it, but I'll focus on just two or three. Before I get to that, I should mention that when I heard that after killing him, the US buried him at sea, it immediately occurred to me that the conspiracy theorists that I talked about in my last post would almost certainly make a big deal of the lack of a corpse, and it didn't take long for my guess to be proven right. Of course most of them, at least in the US, are the same right wing crazies that went for the "birther" lunacy (since of course they are prone to believe any conspiracy relating to Obama anyway), though there are also a few on the left (yes, the left has nutty people too, though they generally don't have as big a profile or as much influence) that also claim to doubt the account of bin Laden's death. If this had happened under Bush no doubt there would be even more left-wing conspiracy theorists and fewer right-wing ones, but it was inevitable that there'd be some in any case. For the record, I am sure that bin Laden is really dead and that he was indeed killed only last week in Pakistan (even al Qaeda itself has acknowledged this). I also understand the reasoning behind the burial at sea (though I wonder if they considered an unmarked grave in a secret location; perhaps there was some reason that wouldn't have been practical).
But moving on the points I wanted to focus on, the first of these is the significance of bin Laden's death. Obviously it is a political victory for President Obama, since he is now able to claim credit for eliminating the leader of the organization behind the 9/11 attacks on the United States, something George W. Bush, despite two wars (the one actually irrelevant to 9/11 absorbing most of his administration's energy) was unable to accomplish. It makes it harder for the Republicans to claim Obama is soft on terror (though many of them continue to say that is the case) or that he is incapable of making tough calls.
It also seems probable that bin Laden's death will have an effect on al Qaeda and Islamic extremism in general, as bin Laden was an important symbol and his death shows that the US is capable of hunting down the group's top leaders (though many of them may not particularly fear death anyway -- fanatics often don't). However, the impact is likely to be limited. In fact, the big deal that many Americans and others have made of bin Laden's death shows more about the human tendency to make individual people into symbols for much bigger things, good or bad. Bin Laden has been largely irrelevant for the past decade, with his deputy and probable successor Ayman al-Zawahri being more active than him, many groups using the al Qaeda name having at best very loose ties to the central organization, and even al Qaeda as a whole looking pretty irrelevant in the Middle East during the revolutions there over the past few months. It is still possible that bin Laden himself could have directed further attacks (such as the attacks on the US rail system he is said to have been plotting), so he was still dangerous. But a lot of other people probably represented a greater current threat to the US and other Western countries than he did.
Another aspect of bin Laden's death is the ethics of it. There is reason to question the propriety of launching a mission like this in another country without that country's permission (though I can understand why the US didn't trust Pakistan's military or security agency, and one Pakistani even said "If your enemy was living in my house for years and I never did anything about it, of course you'd come get him yourself" or something to that effect). But leaving that aside, there is the point that only one person at the house fired at the US team and bin Laden himself was unarmed when he was killed, and probably had little time to surrender. This indicates that the US didn't really want to capture him, but set out to kill him. Several reports suggested that he might have been reaching for a weapon, and one mentioned a fear that he could have a suicide vest (though given that he'd been living in seclusion in that house for years, it seems extremely improbable that he'd have habitually worn a suicide vest). But it seems just as likely that this was a simple hit job, which raises uncomfortable ethical questions. There's no question in my mind that Osama was a bad person -- though there are many people who are much worse, given all the sadistic murderers and torturers in the world -- or that he was at least at one time one of the world's most dangerous (as opposed to worst) people, though as I said above, he was much less dangerous by the time of his death. I'm certainly not sorry that he's dead. But I'm not going to dance in the streets over it, and I have some doubts about the morality of just shooting him dead rather than even trying to capture him. I understand that a captive Osama bin Laden would have created a lot of headaches, but I'm not convinced we should just kill someone because it's more convenient that way.
On the other hand, I suppose one could look at it another way. Once the US had strong reason to believe that Osama bin Laden was in that house, they were certain to go after him one way or another, which is understandable enough, as he still presented a danger. If Obama had not ordered a strike team sent in but had gone with his most likely other option, a Predator drone strike, everyone in the house, including women and children, would probably have been killed. So at least this way casualties were kept to a minimum, and seemingly only one innocent life was lost (I am referring to the wife of the courier who was killed when her husband shot at the Americans, though admittedly I don't know that the son of bin Laden who was also killed was in anyway dangerous). So in comparison to a Predator strike, sending a strike team, or even a hit squad, has to be seen as the humane choice. I still have problems with the image of the US team shooting several unarmed people seemingly without even giving them time to surrender, but there are worse things they could have done. Also, at least the US leadership itself openly revised their story about what happened rather than trying to cover it up, a far cry from a country like, say, Sri Lanka, which according to a number of reports killed several Tamil Tiger leaders in cold blood after they surrendered but still refuses to admit it, despite video evidence of at least one of the people who supposedly died in battle having been in government hands.
So while I have mixed feelings about the way bin Laden was killed, I'm not sorry he's dead. But even before I heard he was unarmed when he was shot, I had read about another point that, though relatively minor, speaks of poor judgement by someone in the chain of command. I refer to the choice of the name "Geronimo" as the US team's code name for bin Laden. As soon as I read that, I thought, "That's not a very well thought out choice of name", and evidently I was not the only one who thought so. You would think it would have occurred to someone that more than a few Native Americans might be offended by equating Geronimo with Osama bin Laden. While it's not really a big deal, an apology might be in order at some point down the line.
But moving on the points I wanted to focus on, the first of these is the significance of bin Laden's death. Obviously it is a political victory for President Obama, since he is now able to claim credit for eliminating the leader of the organization behind the 9/11 attacks on the United States, something George W. Bush, despite two wars (the one actually irrelevant to 9/11 absorbing most of his administration's energy) was unable to accomplish. It makes it harder for the Republicans to claim Obama is soft on terror (though many of them continue to say that is the case) or that he is incapable of making tough calls.
It also seems probable that bin Laden's death will have an effect on al Qaeda and Islamic extremism in general, as bin Laden was an important symbol and his death shows that the US is capable of hunting down the group's top leaders (though many of them may not particularly fear death anyway -- fanatics often don't). However, the impact is likely to be limited. In fact, the big deal that many Americans and others have made of bin Laden's death shows more about the human tendency to make individual people into symbols for much bigger things, good or bad. Bin Laden has been largely irrelevant for the past decade, with his deputy and probable successor Ayman al-Zawahri being more active than him, many groups using the al Qaeda name having at best very loose ties to the central organization, and even al Qaeda as a whole looking pretty irrelevant in the Middle East during the revolutions there over the past few months. It is still possible that bin Laden himself could have directed further attacks (such as the attacks on the US rail system he is said to have been plotting), so he was still dangerous. But a lot of other people probably represented a greater current threat to the US and other Western countries than he did.
Another aspect of bin Laden's death is the ethics of it. There is reason to question the propriety of launching a mission like this in another country without that country's permission (though I can understand why the US didn't trust Pakistan's military or security agency, and one Pakistani even said "If your enemy was living in my house for years and I never did anything about it, of course you'd come get him yourself" or something to that effect). But leaving that aside, there is the point that only one person at the house fired at the US team and bin Laden himself was unarmed when he was killed, and probably had little time to surrender. This indicates that the US didn't really want to capture him, but set out to kill him. Several reports suggested that he might have been reaching for a weapon, and one mentioned a fear that he could have a suicide vest (though given that he'd been living in seclusion in that house for years, it seems extremely improbable that he'd have habitually worn a suicide vest). But it seems just as likely that this was a simple hit job, which raises uncomfortable ethical questions. There's no question in my mind that Osama was a bad person -- though there are many people who are much worse, given all the sadistic murderers and torturers in the world -- or that he was at least at one time one of the world's most dangerous (as opposed to worst) people, though as I said above, he was much less dangerous by the time of his death. I'm certainly not sorry that he's dead. But I'm not going to dance in the streets over it, and I have some doubts about the morality of just shooting him dead rather than even trying to capture him. I understand that a captive Osama bin Laden would have created a lot of headaches, but I'm not convinced we should just kill someone because it's more convenient that way.
On the other hand, I suppose one could look at it another way. Once the US had strong reason to believe that Osama bin Laden was in that house, they were certain to go after him one way or another, which is understandable enough, as he still presented a danger. If Obama had not ordered a strike team sent in but had gone with his most likely other option, a Predator drone strike, everyone in the house, including women and children, would probably have been killed. So at least this way casualties were kept to a minimum, and seemingly only one innocent life was lost (I am referring to the wife of the courier who was killed when her husband shot at the Americans, though admittedly I don't know that the son of bin Laden who was also killed was in anyway dangerous). So in comparison to a Predator strike, sending a strike team, or even a hit squad, has to be seen as the humane choice. I still have problems with the image of the US team shooting several unarmed people seemingly without even giving them time to surrender, but there are worse things they could have done. Also, at least the US leadership itself openly revised their story about what happened rather than trying to cover it up, a far cry from a country like, say, Sri Lanka, which according to a number of reports killed several Tamil Tiger leaders in cold blood after they surrendered but still refuses to admit it, despite video evidence of at least one of the people who supposedly died in battle having been in government hands.
So while I have mixed feelings about the way bin Laden was killed, I'm not sorry he's dead. But even before I heard he was unarmed when he was shot, I had read about another point that, though relatively minor, speaks of poor judgement by someone in the chain of command. I refer to the choice of the name "Geronimo" as the US team's code name for bin Laden. As soon as I read that, I thought, "That's not a very well thought out choice of name", and evidently I was not the only one who thought so. You would think it would have occurred to someone that more than a few Native Americans might be offended by equating Geronimo with Osama bin Laden. While it's not really a big deal, an apology might be in order at some point down the line.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
