The biggest news item in the past few days was the death of Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi at the end of the siege of Sirte. Few sensible people will mourn his death, since, despite some bizarre attempts by a few delusional people to whitewash his record, there is no question that he was a ruthless dictator -- not perhaps the cruelest or bloodiest, but bad enough, and dangerously erratic to boot. The manner of his death, on the other hand, deserves closer investigation, as he was killed after being captured alive by the rebel forces. As I stated in my previous post, I am not a big fan of capital punishment, and I'm even less a fan of lynching and other forms of mob justice, even if the victim is a dictator who did far worse to many of his people.
The manner of Gaddafi's death reminded me in some ways of that of Romanian dictator Nicolae Ceaușescu, though the latter was given a short trial of questionable legitimacy before being executed. It is even more similar to the death of the Ngo brothers (South Vietnamese president/dictator Ngo Dinh Diem and his brother/right-hand man Ngo Dinh Nhu), who were both shot after being captured by rebel officers who lost their temper at them (incidentally, while Diem was bad, Nhu and his wife Tran Le Xuan were particularly awful -- probably even worse than Gaddafi, if it is possible to make such comparisons). In all of these cases, despite the crimes committed by those killed, it would have been better to see them face proper justice (though in Nhu's case, I'd be tempted to say he got off too easily, like his idol Adolf Hitler). Since it is too late for Gaddafi to face justice, despite the efforts of those among his rebel captors who kept reminding their comrades that they wanted him alive, we'll just have to hope his sons will go on trial. Other than Saif al-Islam Gaddafi, who had been Muammar's heir apparent, the other living son I'd particularly like to see go on trial is the one who is unfortunately named after one of my favorite figures from ancient history, the Carthaginian Hannibal. This son and his wife apparently tortured one of their maids at home in Libya by tying her up and pouring boiling water on her and several years ago they caused an international incident by beating their servants in Switzerland, though the wife also may have been a victim of violence at the hands of her husband, judging from another incident in London. Unfortunately, they succeeded in fleeing to Algeria, which for the moment has put them out of reach of justice.
In all the reports about Gaddafi's death, another international incident seems to have rather quickly disappeared from the news. I am referring to the attacks by the Kurdish insurgent group the PKK on several Turkish army outposts, killed 24 soldiers, and the response to this by Turkey (launching military strikes into Iraqi Kurdistan) and its European and American allies. I should point out that, while I believe the Kurds living under Turkish rule have many rightful grievances, I don't think the PKK is a wonderful bunch of people. Unlike the people who rather disgustingly speak in favor of awful regimes like those in Syria and China (or that of Gaddafi in Libya) simply because they are rivals or enemies of the US, I would not try to assert that the PKK has any more right to be seen as the "good guys" in this conflict than the Turkish government does. But nevertheless the quotes from news articles like this one infuriate me. Leaders and representatives of the EU, several of its member countries, and even US President Barack Obama himself (not to mention Turkey's president and prime minister, who I saw quoted elsewhere) all used the word "terrorist" to characterize these attacks. As I have noted elsewhere, an attack on armed soldiers in a war zone is not a terrorist attack by any commonly accepted definition of the term. Some might argue that any form of warfare is terrorism, but evidently neither Turkey (whose immediate response was military strikes) nor its allies (who are currently engaged in warfare in Afghanistan and until a few days ago were fighting in Libya) think so. If warfare itself is not terrorism, then the PKK's attacks, though violent, unproductive and even worthy of condemnation, are not by any means terrorism, and calling them so is just as idiotic as universally labeling anything Obama does "socialism", as right-wing lunatics in the US are prone to do. I find it extremely disappointing, to say the least, to see Western leaders such as Obama use the type of wildly misleading rhetoric the worst fringe groups in their countries use. Condemn the attacks if you must (though you should also be condemning many of Turkey's policies toward its Kurdish minority), but don't call them something they most clearly are not.
In the US and elsewhere, one of the top news stories has been the Occupy Wall Street movement and its various spinoffs. As might be expected, I am in general sympathy with the movement. I do think a few of the criticisms I've seen have some legitimacy; for instance, it would be useful to have a few specific demands and goals. Also, while creating greater equality in the society by reducing the power and influence of the wealthiest 1% is something I wholeheartedly support, it also has to be acknowledged that some specific problems, such as the US federal debt, will require some sacrifice by a much greater percentage of Americans than just the richest 1%, though the latter should pay an amount commensurate with their wealth. To take an example, all of the Bush tax cuts should be allowed to expire, not merely those on the wealthiest, though at the same time many of the loopholes that allow the very richest to pay less tax than many others (as Warren Buffett has pointed out) should be closed, so that while most people's taxes will go up a little, the taxes paid by the richest will go up more. To be fair, I'm sure many in the Occupy movement would not deny that most people may be required to make some sacrifices; as I suggested, I think the goal of many in the protests is more to reform things so that the wealthy no longer have such overwhelming power in the society, not simply forcing them to pay more taxes.
Some other problems with the protests are practical. For instance, I saw when article which negatively reported on the occupiers' use of nearby toilets, with some restaurant owners complaining that the protestors messed up their toilets and a few of them locking them in response. There's no question that those involved need to be responsible in their use of local facilities, though unfortunately it doesn't take many people to put a toilet in a pretty awful condition, and there is a general shortage of public toilets in many American cities, as this commentary points out. A thornier issue is the occasional protestor or speaker who makes outrageous statements, such as the teacher in LA who made anti-Jewish remarks. I certainly don't think the movement should be judged on the basis of a few idiots, though to be fair the tea baggers could say the same about those in their protests who carry racist signs. Really, neither group should be judged by its most extreme members, especially given that both are rather broad and so include a variety of people with widely divergent views. But if we just look at what might be called the common goals and views of each group, the Occupy Wall Street protestors are much closer to having the right idea.
Saturday, October 22, 2011
Monday, October 10, 2011
Davis, Knox, and al-Awlaki
A number of prominent news stories in the past few weeks have featured murder cases and killings at the hands of governments. One was the execution of Troy Davis by the US state of Georgia despite doubts about his guilt and many pleas and protests on his behalf. From what I read of this case, there were indeed many reasons to question his conviction. Many of the witnesses on whose testimony his conviction depended recanted or changed their testimony, and at least one and maybe two (I can't remember for certain) of the jurors who found him guilty in the first place were quoted as saying they now had doubts. Since those speaking on his behalf were not even for the most part asking that his conviction be overturned but just that his execution be halted and the case be reopened, I also signed a number of petitions on his behalf, but all to no avail.
While I know many people who work actively to end the death penalty, I haven't entirely made up my mind about it myself. When I read about some particularly heinous crimes (including those committed by agents of governments), I find it hard to argue that the individuals who do such things deserve to live. However, I can appreciate the argument that two wrongs don't make a right, and if it is wrong for individuals to kill, it is wrong for governments to do so as well. I certainly don't buy the widely held belief that the death penalty is an effective deterrent (it clearly isn't, if nothing else because those that commit such crimes are rarely thinking about the possibility of being caught). But the biggest problem with capital punishment is cases like that of Troy Davis, where the person executed may not even be guilty, and the obvious biases in its application (in the US a hugely disproportionate number of those executed are minorities, and in both the US and Taiwan, those from less affluent backgrounds are far more likely to get the death penalty).
Another murder case that received a lot of attention (rather too much in my opinion) was that of British student Meredith Kercher, whose roommate Amanda Knox was originally convicted of taking part in the murder before having her conviction overturned by Italian appeals court last week (of course she hadn't received the death penalty, which Italy along with most of Europe has banned as barbaric, but she faced the prospect of many years in prison on top of those she'd already spent there). I didn't read many of the excessive number of articles on this case, but one of the few I did read had some quotes from Kercher's family, which I found quite sensible. For one thing, they were concerned that the victim was being forgotten in all the media hype about Knox's trial, but more importantly, they wanted the real culprit to be found. What was instructive about this was that unlike, for instance, the family of the off-duty cop Troy Davis was accused of killing or many members of the families of murder victims in Taiwan that make media statements, they did not insist that the people originally convicted must have been guilty. The latter type of response I have always found strange and rather disturbing. While I can certainly understand the desire to see someone pay for the death of a loved one, if there is any reason at all to think the person originally accused was not guilty, by nevertheless insisting on the guilt of the accused the victim's family may well be ensuring that the true guilty party will never be caught. If it were me, I would want to be absolutely sure that the real guilty party received some sort of punishment, rather than seeking a false sense of closure from the conviction and even execution of a person who may or may not be guilty at the cost of possibly letting the real perpetrator get away. In this sense, I found the Kercher family's reaction to be quite refreshing, and I hope they get what they desire.
Another, rather different case of the killing of an individual at the hands of a government was the targeted killing of prominent al-Qaeda member Anwar al-Awlaki by a US government drone attack. The reason this was more controversial in the US itself than the mission to kill Osama bin Laden or other attacks by the US military on al-Qaeda leaders is al-Awlaki was a US citizen, and many have argued that the president should not be able to simply target a US citizen for death, thereby acting as judge, jury and executioner. For my part, I would say the implications of an American president or other top official targeting any individual for death are somewhat problematic, regardless of nationality, as in principle I think the rights of all people should be equally respected. On the other hand, I think it's also fair to say that someone who not only openly advocates murder (in this case of Americans) but even (supposedly) actively facilitates such murders makes it easy for those who are in danger to claim self-defense. In other words, I am somewhat disturbed by President Obama's seeming willingness to sign off on such a mission without any obvious soul-searching with respect to the moral implications, but I feel similarly in a case such as bin Ladin's when the person targeted for death is not American, and overall, despite such reservations, I'm inclined to accept the necessity of such missions in order to prevent those killed from killing innocent people. Basically, while I can accept that there are a few circumstances where killing may be necessary, I don't think it should ever be done casually or when there is any doubt at all about its necessity.
While I know many people who work actively to end the death penalty, I haven't entirely made up my mind about it myself. When I read about some particularly heinous crimes (including those committed by agents of governments), I find it hard to argue that the individuals who do such things deserve to live. However, I can appreciate the argument that two wrongs don't make a right, and if it is wrong for individuals to kill, it is wrong for governments to do so as well. I certainly don't buy the widely held belief that the death penalty is an effective deterrent (it clearly isn't, if nothing else because those that commit such crimes are rarely thinking about the possibility of being caught). But the biggest problem with capital punishment is cases like that of Troy Davis, where the person executed may not even be guilty, and the obvious biases in its application (in the US a hugely disproportionate number of those executed are minorities, and in both the US and Taiwan, those from less affluent backgrounds are far more likely to get the death penalty).
Another murder case that received a lot of attention (rather too much in my opinion) was that of British student Meredith Kercher, whose roommate Amanda Knox was originally convicted of taking part in the murder before having her conviction overturned by Italian appeals court last week (of course she hadn't received the death penalty, which Italy along with most of Europe has banned as barbaric, but she faced the prospect of many years in prison on top of those she'd already spent there). I didn't read many of the excessive number of articles on this case, but one of the few I did read had some quotes from Kercher's family, which I found quite sensible. For one thing, they were concerned that the victim was being forgotten in all the media hype about Knox's trial, but more importantly, they wanted the real culprit to be found. What was instructive about this was that unlike, for instance, the family of the off-duty cop Troy Davis was accused of killing or many members of the families of murder victims in Taiwan that make media statements, they did not insist that the people originally convicted must have been guilty. The latter type of response I have always found strange and rather disturbing. While I can certainly understand the desire to see someone pay for the death of a loved one, if there is any reason at all to think the person originally accused was not guilty, by nevertheless insisting on the guilt of the accused the victim's family may well be ensuring that the true guilty party will never be caught. If it were me, I would want to be absolutely sure that the real guilty party received some sort of punishment, rather than seeking a false sense of closure from the conviction and even execution of a person who may or may not be guilty at the cost of possibly letting the real perpetrator get away. In this sense, I found the Kercher family's reaction to be quite refreshing, and I hope they get what they desire.
Another, rather different case of the killing of an individual at the hands of a government was the targeted killing of prominent al-Qaeda member Anwar al-Awlaki by a US government drone attack. The reason this was more controversial in the US itself than the mission to kill Osama bin Laden or other attacks by the US military on al-Qaeda leaders is al-Awlaki was a US citizen, and many have argued that the president should not be able to simply target a US citizen for death, thereby acting as judge, jury and executioner. For my part, I would say the implications of an American president or other top official targeting any individual for death are somewhat problematic, regardless of nationality, as in principle I think the rights of all people should be equally respected. On the other hand, I think it's also fair to say that someone who not only openly advocates murder (in this case of Americans) but even (supposedly) actively facilitates such murders makes it easy for those who are in danger to claim self-defense. In other words, I am somewhat disturbed by President Obama's seeming willingness to sign off on such a mission without any obvious soul-searching with respect to the moral implications, but I feel similarly in a case such as bin Ladin's when the person targeted for death is not American, and overall, despite such reservations, I'm inclined to accept the necessity of such missions in order to prevent those killed from killing innocent people. Basically, while I can accept that there are a few circumstances where killing may be necessary, I don't think it should ever be done casually or when there is any doubt at all about its necessity.
Friday, September 30, 2011
A few good articles
Since it's the end of the month and I've only managed to post two entries so far this month, I'll cheat a little again and provide links to a couple of good articles I've read recently.
Here's a good opinion piece from the LA Times on the absurdity of the right-wing assertion that if anyone should pay more taxes, it's not the rich but the "undeserving poor". The Daily Show also covered this issue last month (see both part 1 and part 2) from a slightly different angle (more humorous, though fewer hard numbers).
On another topic, a good overview of the history of the global warming issue and a discussion of the bizarre propensity of a large segment of the American public to deny the evidence can be found here.
Here's a good opinion piece from the LA Times on the absurdity of the right-wing assertion that if anyone should pay more taxes, it's not the rich but the "undeserving poor". The Daily Show also covered this issue last month (see both part 1 and part 2) from a slightly different angle (more humorous, though fewer hard numbers).
On another topic, a good overview of the history of the global warming issue and a discussion of the bizarre propensity of a large segment of the American public to deny the evidence can be found here.
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
Taiwan News: F-16s, the UN and the 2012 Presidential Election
Taiwan has been in the international news lately with the report that the Obama administration has decided not to sell advanced F-16s to the country, but has instead offered to help upgrade the fighters they have. I don’t have the expertise to be sure whether the administration’s claim that an upgrade of existing fighters will be as good a deal as selling new aircraft (the basis for this claim being apparently that the upgrade would cover a far larger number of aircraft, would make them almost as good as the new aircraft would be, and would be cheaper), but if the administration has made this decision out of a fear of China’s reaction, then it is still a black mark on their record (of course other countries refuse to even do this much for Taiwan, also for fear of Chinese displeasure, but that doesn’t really excuse the US, especially since it is bound by the Taiwan Relations Act to assist Taiwan). It is possible that there may be legitimate reasons for a reluctance to sell new F-16, such as a fear that Chinese spies would get easier access to US technology as asserted in this article (of course the Taiwan government issued a rebuttal, but that doesn’t prove there isn’t a problem). However, I suspect that China’s touchiness about any threat to their imperialist ambitions toward Taiwan did enter into US calculations, indicating that on this issue Obama looks no better than his predecessors (though in other areas he’s been looking better lately; the little I’ve seen of his deficit plan seems pretty good, especially the so-called “Buffett Rule”, but that’s a topic for another day).
Another big international news story on the surface has nothing to do with Taiwan, but in fact is indicative of a serious lack of principle in the international community. I refer here to the Palestinian plan to seek UN recognition of Palestinian statehood. I haven’t really come down on one side or the other as far as the merits of the Palestinian move. I can understand Palestinian frustration with Israeli intransigence on the settlement issue, and as a people they certainly have some legitimate aspirations that deserve recognition. On the other hand, Israel also has legitimate concerns about security and the stability of a Palestinian state, and I’m not sure that this is the right time for the Palestinians to take this step. But most reports agree that if they take their case to the General Assembly, they’ll have a good chance of winning. My problem with that is the apparent fact that many nations are apparently willing to vote in favor of recognizing a Palestinian state that, regardless of what should be the case, is not currently a truly independent country (its borders are controlled by Israel, which also has a presence throughout much of the West Bank, and it is split between the Palestinian Authority-controlled West Bank and Hamas-controlled Gaza), and yet the vast majority of those same countries will not vote for statehood for Taiwan, which is a fully independent state and has been such for decades. This shows a disgraceful hypocrisy on the part of all those countries, or a craven fear of China, or both.
In Taiwan itself, the media is focusing more and more on the upcoming presidential election, which will take place next January. While I haven’t been reading local news as closely as I should (one problem with getting my news mainly from international websites such as Google and Yahoo and the sources they link to, rather than a local paper), I have seen articles about DPP leader Tsai Ing-wen’s outline of the general principles she would govern under, and broadly speaking, they certainly sound like an improvement over the current administration of the KMT’s Ma Ying-jeou. I particularly like her emphasis on developing a green economy and protecting the environment, as well as a more cautious approach to China. Of course talk is cheap, particularly in politics, and there’s no proof she would follow through on all of these rather vague positions. But she is almost certain to be at least a little better on both the environment and China relations than Ma, whose administration has a poor environmental record and seems intent on rushing into the claws of the Chinese. She will also no doubt be better than the previous DPP president, who was erratic and even more of a narcissist than the average politician, aside from possibly being guilty of corruption (and while the KMT legal attack on him and his family after he left office smacked of a political vendetta, particularly in the disproportionate punishment initially handed down, I suspect he was guilty of at least some of the charges). So at this point I am definitely supporting Tsai Ing-wen for president of Taiwan.
Another big international news story on the surface has nothing to do with Taiwan, but in fact is indicative of a serious lack of principle in the international community. I refer here to the Palestinian plan to seek UN recognition of Palestinian statehood. I haven’t really come down on one side or the other as far as the merits of the Palestinian move. I can understand Palestinian frustration with Israeli intransigence on the settlement issue, and as a people they certainly have some legitimate aspirations that deserve recognition. On the other hand, Israel also has legitimate concerns about security and the stability of a Palestinian state, and I’m not sure that this is the right time for the Palestinians to take this step. But most reports agree that if they take their case to the General Assembly, they’ll have a good chance of winning. My problem with that is the apparent fact that many nations are apparently willing to vote in favor of recognizing a Palestinian state that, regardless of what should be the case, is not currently a truly independent country (its borders are controlled by Israel, which also has a presence throughout much of the West Bank, and it is split between the Palestinian Authority-controlled West Bank and Hamas-controlled Gaza), and yet the vast majority of those same countries will not vote for statehood for Taiwan, which is a fully independent state and has been such for decades. This shows a disgraceful hypocrisy on the part of all those countries, or a craven fear of China, or both.
In Taiwan itself, the media is focusing more and more on the upcoming presidential election, which will take place next January. While I haven’t been reading local news as closely as I should (one problem with getting my news mainly from international websites such as Google and Yahoo and the sources they link to, rather than a local paper), I have seen articles about DPP leader Tsai Ing-wen’s outline of the general principles she would govern under, and broadly speaking, they certainly sound like an improvement over the current administration of the KMT’s Ma Ying-jeou. I particularly like her emphasis on developing a green economy and protecting the environment, as well as a more cautious approach to China. Of course talk is cheap, particularly in politics, and there’s no proof she would follow through on all of these rather vague positions. But she is almost certain to be at least a little better on both the environment and China relations than Ma, whose administration has a poor environmental record and seems intent on rushing into the claws of the Chinese. She will also no doubt be better than the previous DPP president, who was erratic and even more of a narcissist than the average politician, aside from possibly being guilty of corruption (and while the KMT legal attack on him and his family after he left office smacked of a political vendetta, particularly in the disproportionate punishment initially handed down, I suspect he was guilty of at least some of the charges). So at this point I am definitely supporting Tsai Ing-wen for president of Taiwan.
Saturday, September 10, 2011
What I've Been Reading -- June 2011 to August 2011, Part 2
Here is the second half of my commentary on books I've read recently. This post is mainly concerned with a trilogy about climate change by Kim Stanley Robinson and a collection of quotes from Bertrand Russell. At the end of it, I have included quite a few quotes from Russell, making this an exceptionally long blog post. But the quotes are all quite good, and those who don't have the patience to read them all at once can always read a few at a time.
Forty Signs of Rain, Fifty Degrees Below and Sixty Days and Counting by Kim Stanley Robinson
The novels that have occupied the largest share of my commuting time in the past few months have been Forty Signs of Rain, Fifty Degrees Below and Sixty Days and Counting, the three parts of a trilogy by Kim Stanley Robinson. They are set in the first decade or so of the twentieth century, at a time when climate change is hitting several tipping points (the stalling of the Gulf Stream being the first), causing dramatic changes in the weather. The chief characters are scientists and people closely connected with them, with the National Science Foundation in Washington, D.C., being the setting for much of the story.
The central characters are Anna Quibbler, a scientist at NSF; her husband Charile Quibbler, a staffer for a progressive Democratic senator from California named Phil Chase; and Anna’s colleague Frank Vanderwal (who is on leave from UC-San Diego), plus numerous supporting characters with various connections to these three. One of the more interesting groups of supporting characters is the Khembalis, ethnic Tibetans from the fictional island nation of Khembalung, located in the ocean near the Ganges delta. They first appear at the beginning of Forty Signs of Rain, having come to set up an embassy in the NSF building. The chief Khembalis were originally refugees from Tibet itself, several of them having been imprisoned by the Chinese. At the time the novel begins, their island home is threatened by the rising sea level caused by climate change. Their linking of Buddhist ideas with science plays an important role in the novel, having a particularly profound effect on Frank Vanderwal, who becomes the main focus of much of the story, particularly in Fifty Degrees Below. The Dalai Lama even makes an appearance, giving a speech in Washington, D.C.
I have read a number of Robinson’s books, but the work this most reminds me of is his Mars trilogy. Like those books, these three are set in the near future (though considerably nearer in this case). Both trilogies are bursting with ideas and expository passages on a wide variety of subjects, ranging from biochemistry, geology, sociology, and psychology to economics, religion, and politics. There is a lot of hard science, and in both trilogies Robinson reveals a fondness for massive engineering projects on a scale that affects the entire planet (Mars in one trilogy and Earth in the other), but he also displays a keen interest in outdoor physical activities (here including rock climbing and kayaking, among others) and alternative lifestyles (the most prominent here being freeganism). Much of this is presented in an impressive amount of detail. While he may not get everything right (for many of the topics he covers I’m not well-versed enough in them to say, but I know for sure that one of his historical analogies in the Martian trilogy involved a few anachronisms), the breadth of knowledge displayed is considerable, and it makes reading his books educational as well as entertaining.
Being set on Earth in the near future, in this trilogy politics of the sort most people are familiar naturally play a much greater role (though there is plenty of politics in the Mars trilogy, most of it is Martian politics, relating to the creation of a new society). With his keen interest in social justice, the environment and ecological sustainability, it should be obvious which side of the American political divide he comes in on. In addition to presenting a vast array of ideas for dealing with climate change and other scientific problems, in these novels he points out a lot of the inequities in our current society and suggests some radical solutions to them (there are also asides about all sorts of things – when Frank is thinking about the problem of suitable clothing for freezing weather he concludes that jeans are, as he puts it, “the SUVs of pants” – too hot and heavy in the summer and poor insulators in the winter). Again, I’m not certain that all of his ideas, whether scientific, political or economic, could really work the way he describes them, but many of them would be worth a closer look in the real world – if there was ever a leader or a government with the nerve to try them.
This relates to another interesting aspect of the trilogy. These books were published between 2004 and 2007. Not to give away too much, but in the course of the story the progressive senator Phil Chase, impelled in part by the environmental disasters overtaking the US and the world, decides to run for president with an ambitious program for dealing with the problem and for changing things in the society, though he faces strong conservative opposition. In reading the parts of the novel relating to Chase and his efforts, I couldn’t help but compare him to Barack Obama. The obvious difference between them is of course that Obama has proved much less ambitious, settling for incremental rather than radical change. Of course in terms of climate change, there haven’t yet been weather events quite as dramatic as in the books, so Obama wouldn’t have had much chance of winning enough support to do nearly as much in that area. But nevertheless, a comparison of the fictional Chase and Obama could serve as the basis for an entire essay on whether Obama has been not shown enough ambition in bringing real change. I should note, however, that despite his obvious cynicism about some elements of the political and business class, Robinson is in some ways perhaps overly optimistic about the possibility of overcoming the forces opposing change.
If there is a weakness to these books from the average reader’s point of view (other than one or two minor inconsistencies that don’t affect the story that much), it is the lack of the dramatic plot that most people expect. There are a lot of dramatic events, and there is even a plot thread involving a rogue intelligence agency that resembles a conventional thriller, but there isn’t an overarching plot in the standard sense. This is similar to varying degrees with Robinson’s other books (The Years of Rice and Salt is an alternative history spanning centuries, and the Mars trilogy tells of the settlement and terraforming of Mars over close to two centuries). But as these books follow the lives of scientists rather than explorers or warriors, there is even less drama than in those books (the Mars books, for instance, feature two Martian revolutions). In a way they are more like real life, albeit set in dramatic times. So for readers who need a thoroughly gripping plot to keep their attention, these books may not be suitable. But for anyone interested in interesting ideas on the topics mentioned, and particularly in the issue of climate change, they are highly recommended (indeed, as some reviewers stated, they should be required reading for policy makers in Washington, D.C.).
Orcs: Bodyguard of Lightning, Legion of Thunder and Warriors of the Tempest by Stan Nicholls
Orcs is an omnibus edition of three fantasy novels by Stan Nicholls originally published as Bodyguard of Lightning, Legion of Thunder and Warriors of the Tempest, plus a prequel short story. The novels take an unorthodox approach to genre fantasy, with a clever opening in which a band of warriors is leading an assault on a settlement of another type of creatures, and it is not until the end of the first chapter that the nature of both the attackers and the defenders is revealed. It’s a little too bad that the surprise is undercut by the knowledge that anyone who has read the blurb on the back, or this commentary, or even just the title of the omnibus edition will have. The attackers (except for one) are of course orcs, and the defenders are humans. Even though the surprise is spoiled, though, the idea of making orcs the protagonists of a fantasy novel is original, and in many ways Nicholls succeeds better than R.A. Salvatore with his Dark Elf books, in part because his portrayal of the characters of the leading orcs is more believable.
The books center on an orc warband called the Wolverines, led by their captain Stryke, sergeants Jup (a dwarf and the only non-orc) and Haskeer, and corporals Coilla (the only female) and Alfray. The world they inhabit has an incredible variety of fantasy races (a explanation for this is eventually given), most of them with familiar names but not always familiar appearances or characteristics, and many only appearing in one or two scenes. The continent they inhabit has lately suffered an influx of humans, who have damaged the environment and thereby caused the land’s magic to drain away, further resulting in changes to the climate. Originally in the service of a tyrannical part-human ruler, the Wolverines end up going rogue and going on a mission to retrieve a group of powerful artifacts. In the process, they have to fight a large variety of opponents, including their former mistress and a religious leader who is modeled on the worst sort of heretic-burning, racist Puritan.
Basically this book is straightforward genre fantasy. It doesn’t compare with Guy Kay’s novels, for instance, in terms of writing or depth and there are a number of events that stretch the reader’s credulity. But it is reasonably entertaining and action-packed, and as I said the use of orcs of protagonists alone sets it apart from other novels in this genre. While I wouldn’t suggest that anyone go out of their way to get a copy, if you happen to run across one and want a little light reading, there are worse choices you could make.
Bertrand Russell’s Best
Bertrand Russell’s Best is a collection of quotes from the published works and speeches of Bertrand Russell, selected by Robert Egner. Bertrand Russell, for those who don’t know, was a mathematician, philosopher and winner of the Nobel Prize for Literature. His paternal grandfather, in whose household he was raised after the death of his parents, was twice Prime Minister of Great Britain under Queen Victoria. Bertrand Russell himself, who inherited the title of Earl, wrote and spoke on science, politics, education, religion, morality and a host of other topics. He was also active in political causes, such as opposing World War I (for which he spent time in jail), opposing Hitler and Stalin, and drafting the Russell-Einstein Manifesto calling for nuclear disarmament (Albert Einstein signed it just days before his death, making it his last major public statement). His work had a profound influence on a great number of fields, especially those relating to logic and mathematics (including computer science) as well as philosophy. This collection of quotes comes from essays and books published over the first half of the twentieth century, plus a few speeches, such as Russell’s Nobel Prize acceptance speech. It is divided into chapters based on topic, with the topics including psychology, religion, sex and marriage, education, politics, and ethics.
Of all the philosophical and religious works I’ve read over the past few years, from scriptures of the major religions to Plato, Confucius, and Marx, this is by far the most entertaining one I’ve come across (though being a collection of Russell’s best quotes, at least according to the editor, it has something of an unfair advantage). It is also the one that I found myself in closest agreement with. In most works of this kind, I find a number of things I completely agree with, other things I am not so sure or neutral about, and still others that I disagree with, sometimes strongly. In this case the vast majority fell into the first category. There were a few minor points I might question, and a few of his examples and analogies are slightly simplistic or just out of date (in two different references to human evolution, he mentions Piltdown Man, which is now known to be a forgery), and I’m a little dubious about some of his anthropological references. He often uses the same examples in different places (though this is understandable; I do the same myself). But these problems rarely negate his main points, which are almost all well made.
Russell is well known for his secular humanism, but not all he has to say about Christianity is critical (though a large portion of it is), and he targets other religions and philosophers as well. He is critical of Plato and Aristotle as well as Aquinas. The longest quote in this book tells the story of an imaginary debate between the Buddha and Nietzsche, in which the Buddha gets the upper hand (in fact Russell’s point was to attack Nietzsche’s ethical views). He also criticizes conservative thinking, war, narrow minded educational views, politicians, and our short-sighted profligacy with natural resources.
One reason Russell is so entertaining to read is his wit. It is with good reason that this collection is subtitled “Silhouettes in Satire”. He makes regular use of irony to get his point across. There are two many good examples to quote all of them, but here are some (the ones on Roosevelt and the use of natural resources seem particularly apt now):
“The view of the orthodox moralist (this includes the police and the magistrates, but hardly any modern educators) on the question of sex knowledge may, I fancy, be fairly stated as follows.... There is no doubt that sexual misconduct is promoted by sexual thoughts, and that the best road to virtue is to keep the young occupied in mind and body with matters wholly unconnected with sex. They must, therefore, be told nothing whatever about sex; they must as far as possible be prevented from talking about it with each other, and grownups must pretend that there is no such topic. It is possible by these means to keep a girl in ignorance until the night of her marriage, when it is to be expected that the facts will so shock her as to produce exactly that attitude towards sex which every sound moralist considers desirable in women.”
"Dread of disaster makes everybody act in the very way that increases the disaster. Psychologically the situation is analogous to that of people trampled to death when there is a panic in a theatre caused by a cry of 'Fire!' In the situation that existed in the great depression, things could only be set right by causing the idle plant to work again. But everybody felt that to do so was to risk almost certain loss. Within the framework of classical economics there was no solution. Roosevelt saved the situation by bold and heretical action. He spent billions of public money and created a huge public debt, but by so doing he revived production and brought his country out of the depression. Businessmen, who in spite of such a sharp lesson continued to believe in old-fashioned economics, were infinitely shocked, and although Roosevelt saved them from ruin, they continued to curse him and to speak of him as 'the madman in the White House.' Except for Fabre's investigation of the behavior of insects, I do not know any equally striking example of inability to learn from experience."
"The conscientious Radical is faced with great difficulties. He knows that he can increase his popularity by being false to his creed, and appealing to hatreds that have nothing to do with the reforms in which he believes. For example: a community that suffers from Japanese competition can easily be made indignant about bad labor conditions in Japan, and the unfair price-cutting that they render possible. But if the speaker goes on to say that it is Japanese employers who should be opposed, not Japanese employees, he will lose a large part of the sympathy of his audience. The Radical's only ultimate protection against demagogic appeals to misguided hatreds lies in education: he must convince intellectually a sufficient number of people to form the nucleus of a propagandist army. This is undoubtedly a difficult task, while the whole force of the State and the plutocracy is devoted to the fostering of unreason. But it is perhaps not so hopeless a task as many are now inclined to believe and in any case it cannot be shirked, since the appeal to unreasoning emotion can always be better done by charlatans."
"I cannot be content with a brief moment of riotous living followed by destitution, and however clever the scientists may be, there are some things that they cannot be expected to achieve. When they have used up all the easily available sources of energy that nature has scattered carelessly over the surface of our planet, they will have to resort to more laborious processes, and these will involve a gradual lowering of the standard of living. Modern industrialists are like men who have come for the first time upon fertile virgin land, and can live for a little while in great comfort with only a modicum of labor. It would be irrational to hope that the present heyday of industrialism will not develop far beyond its present level, but sooner or later, owing to the exhaustion of raw material, its capacity to supply human needs will diminish, not suddenly, but gradually. This could, of course, be prevented if men exercised any restraint or foresight in their present frenzied exploitation. Perhaps before it is too late they will learn to do so."
"There is little of the true philosophic spirit in Aquinas. He does not, like the Platonic Socrates, set out to follow wherever the argument may lead. He is not engaged in an inquiry, the result of which it is impossible to know in advance. Before he begins to philosophize, he already knows the truth; it is declared in the Catholic faith. If he can find apparently rational arguments for some parts of the faith, so much the better; if he cannot, he need only fall back on revelation. The finding of arguments for a conclusion given in advance is not philosophy, but special pleading."
"Two great religions - Buddhism and Christianity - have sought to extend to the whole human race the cooperative feeling that is spontaneous towards fellow tribesmen. They have preached the brotherhood of man, showing by the use of the word 'brotherhood' that they are attempting to extend beyond its natural bounds an emotional attitude which, in its origin, is biological. If we are all children of God, then we are all one family. But in practice those who in theory adopted this creed have always felt that those who did not adopt it were not children of God but children of Satan, and the old mechanism of hatred of those outside the tribe has returned, giving added vigor to the creed, but in a direction which diverted it from its original purpose. Religion, morality, economic self- interest, the mere pursuit of biological survival, all supply to our intelligence unanswerable arguments in favor of worldwide co-operation, but the old instincts that have come down to us from our tribal ancestors rise up in indignation, feeling that life would lose its savor if there were no one to hate, that anyone who could love such a scoundrel as So-and-so would be a worm, that struggle is the law of life, and that in a world where we all loved one another there would be nothing to live for."
"I do not pretend that birth control is the only way in which population can be kept from increasing. There are others, which, one must suppose, opponents of birth control would prefer. War . . . has hitherto been disappointing in this respect, but perhaps bacteriological war may prove more effective. If a Black Death could be spread throughout the world once in every generation survivors could procreate freely without making the world too full. There would be nothing in this to offend the consciences of the devout or to restrain the ambitions of nationalists. The state of affairs might be somewhat unpleasant, but what of that? Really high-minded people are indifferent to happiness, especially other people's."
"One critic takes me to task because I say that only evil passions prevent the realization of a better world, and goes on triumphantly to ask, 'are all human emotions necessarily evil?' In the very book that leads my critic to this objection, I say that what the world needs is Christian love, or compassion. This, surely, is an emotion, and, in saying that this is what the world needs, I am not suggesting reason as a driving force. I can only suppose that this emotion, because it is neither cruel nor destructive, is not attractive to the apostles of unreason."
"All who are not lunatics are agreed about certain things: That it is better to be alive than dead, better to be adequately fed than starved, better to be free than a slave. Many people desire those things only for themselves and their friends; they are quite content that their enemies should suffer. These people can be refuted by science: Mankind has become so much one family that we cannot insure our own prosperity- except by insuring that of everyone else. If you wish to be happy yourself, you must resign yourself to seeing others also happy."
Forty Signs of Rain, Fifty Degrees Below and Sixty Days and Counting by Kim Stanley Robinson
The novels that have occupied the largest share of my commuting time in the past few months have been Forty Signs of Rain, Fifty Degrees Below and Sixty Days and Counting, the three parts of a trilogy by Kim Stanley Robinson. They are set in the first decade or so of the twentieth century, at a time when climate change is hitting several tipping points (the stalling of the Gulf Stream being the first), causing dramatic changes in the weather. The chief characters are scientists and people closely connected with them, with the National Science Foundation in Washington, D.C., being the setting for much of the story.
The central characters are Anna Quibbler, a scientist at NSF; her husband Charile Quibbler, a staffer for a progressive Democratic senator from California named Phil Chase; and Anna’s colleague Frank Vanderwal (who is on leave from UC-San Diego), plus numerous supporting characters with various connections to these three. One of the more interesting groups of supporting characters is the Khembalis, ethnic Tibetans from the fictional island nation of Khembalung, located in the ocean near the Ganges delta. They first appear at the beginning of Forty Signs of Rain, having come to set up an embassy in the NSF building. The chief Khembalis were originally refugees from Tibet itself, several of them having been imprisoned by the Chinese. At the time the novel begins, their island home is threatened by the rising sea level caused by climate change. Their linking of Buddhist ideas with science plays an important role in the novel, having a particularly profound effect on Frank Vanderwal, who becomes the main focus of much of the story, particularly in Fifty Degrees Below. The Dalai Lama even makes an appearance, giving a speech in Washington, D.C.
I have read a number of Robinson’s books, but the work this most reminds me of is his Mars trilogy. Like those books, these three are set in the near future (though considerably nearer in this case). Both trilogies are bursting with ideas and expository passages on a wide variety of subjects, ranging from biochemistry, geology, sociology, and psychology to economics, religion, and politics. There is a lot of hard science, and in both trilogies Robinson reveals a fondness for massive engineering projects on a scale that affects the entire planet (Mars in one trilogy and Earth in the other), but he also displays a keen interest in outdoor physical activities (here including rock climbing and kayaking, among others) and alternative lifestyles (the most prominent here being freeganism). Much of this is presented in an impressive amount of detail. While he may not get everything right (for many of the topics he covers I’m not well-versed enough in them to say, but I know for sure that one of his historical analogies in the Martian trilogy involved a few anachronisms), the breadth of knowledge displayed is considerable, and it makes reading his books educational as well as entertaining.
Being set on Earth in the near future, in this trilogy politics of the sort most people are familiar naturally play a much greater role (though there is plenty of politics in the Mars trilogy, most of it is Martian politics, relating to the creation of a new society). With his keen interest in social justice, the environment and ecological sustainability, it should be obvious which side of the American political divide he comes in on. In addition to presenting a vast array of ideas for dealing with climate change and other scientific problems, in these novels he points out a lot of the inequities in our current society and suggests some radical solutions to them (there are also asides about all sorts of things – when Frank is thinking about the problem of suitable clothing for freezing weather he concludes that jeans are, as he puts it, “the SUVs of pants” – too hot and heavy in the summer and poor insulators in the winter). Again, I’m not certain that all of his ideas, whether scientific, political or economic, could really work the way he describes them, but many of them would be worth a closer look in the real world – if there was ever a leader or a government with the nerve to try them.
This relates to another interesting aspect of the trilogy. These books were published between 2004 and 2007. Not to give away too much, but in the course of the story the progressive senator Phil Chase, impelled in part by the environmental disasters overtaking the US and the world, decides to run for president with an ambitious program for dealing with the problem and for changing things in the society, though he faces strong conservative opposition. In reading the parts of the novel relating to Chase and his efforts, I couldn’t help but compare him to Barack Obama. The obvious difference between them is of course that Obama has proved much less ambitious, settling for incremental rather than radical change. Of course in terms of climate change, there haven’t yet been weather events quite as dramatic as in the books, so Obama wouldn’t have had much chance of winning enough support to do nearly as much in that area. But nevertheless, a comparison of the fictional Chase and Obama could serve as the basis for an entire essay on whether Obama has been not shown enough ambition in bringing real change. I should note, however, that despite his obvious cynicism about some elements of the political and business class, Robinson is in some ways perhaps overly optimistic about the possibility of overcoming the forces opposing change.
If there is a weakness to these books from the average reader’s point of view (other than one or two minor inconsistencies that don’t affect the story that much), it is the lack of the dramatic plot that most people expect. There are a lot of dramatic events, and there is even a plot thread involving a rogue intelligence agency that resembles a conventional thriller, but there isn’t an overarching plot in the standard sense. This is similar to varying degrees with Robinson’s other books (The Years of Rice and Salt is an alternative history spanning centuries, and the Mars trilogy tells of the settlement and terraforming of Mars over close to two centuries). But as these books follow the lives of scientists rather than explorers or warriors, there is even less drama than in those books (the Mars books, for instance, feature two Martian revolutions). In a way they are more like real life, albeit set in dramatic times. So for readers who need a thoroughly gripping plot to keep their attention, these books may not be suitable. But for anyone interested in interesting ideas on the topics mentioned, and particularly in the issue of climate change, they are highly recommended (indeed, as some reviewers stated, they should be required reading for policy makers in Washington, D.C.).
Orcs: Bodyguard of Lightning, Legion of Thunder and Warriors of the Tempest by Stan Nicholls
Orcs is an omnibus edition of three fantasy novels by Stan Nicholls originally published as Bodyguard of Lightning, Legion of Thunder and Warriors of the Tempest, plus a prequel short story. The novels take an unorthodox approach to genre fantasy, with a clever opening in which a band of warriors is leading an assault on a settlement of another type of creatures, and it is not until the end of the first chapter that the nature of both the attackers and the defenders is revealed. It’s a little too bad that the surprise is undercut by the knowledge that anyone who has read the blurb on the back, or this commentary, or even just the title of the omnibus edition will have. The attackers (except for one) are of course orcs, and the defenders are humans. Even though the surprise is spoiled, though, the idea of making orcs the protagonists of a fantasy novel is original, and in many ways Nicholls succeeds better than R.A. Salvatore with his Dark Elf books, in part because his portrayal of the characters of the leading orcs is more believable.
The books center on an orc warband called the Wolverines, led by their captain Stryke, sergeants Jup (a dwarf and the only non-orc) and Haskeer, and corporals Coilla (the only female) and Alfray. The world they inhabit has an incredible variety of fantasy races (a explanation for this is eventually given), most of them with familiar names but not always familiar appearances or characteristics, and many only appearing in one or two scenes. The continent they inhabit has lately suffered an influx of humans, who have damaged the environment and thereby caused the land’s magic to drain away, further resulting in changes to the climate. Originally in the service of a tyrannical part-human ruler, the Wolverines end up going rogue and going on a mission to retrieve a group of powerful artifacts. In the process, they have to fight a large variety of opponents, including their former mistress and a religious leader who is modeled on the worst sort of heretic-burning, racist Puritan.
Basically this book is straightforward genre fantasy. It doesn’t compare with Guy Kay’s novels, for instance, in terms of writing or depth and there are a number of events that stretch the reader’s credulity. But it is reasonably entertaining and action-packed, and as I said the use of orcs of protagonists alone sets it apart from other novels in this genre. While I wouldn’t suggest that anyone go out of their way to get a copy, if you happen to run across one and want a little light reading, there are worse choices you could make.
Bertrand Russell’s Best
Bertrand Russell’s Best is a collection of quotes from the published works and speeches of Bertrand Russell, selected by Robert Egner. Bertrand Russell, for those who don’t know, was a mathematician, philosopher and winner of the Nobel Prize for Literature. His paternal grandfather, in whose household he was raised after the death of his parents, was twice Prime Minister of Great Britain under Queen Victoria. Bertrand Russell himself, who inherited the title of Earl, wrote and spoke on science, politics, education, religion, morality and a host of other topics. He was also active in political causes, such as opposing World War I (for which he spent time in jail), opposing Hitler and Stalin, and drafting the Russell-Einstein Manifesto calling for nuclear disarmament (Albert Einstein signed it just days before his death, making it his last major public statement). His work had a profound influence on a great number of fields, especially those relating to logic and mathematics (including computer science) as well as philosophy. This collection of quotes comes from essays and books published over the first half of the twentieth century, plus a few speeches, such as Russell’s Nobel Prize acceptance speech. It is divided into chapters based on topic, with the topics including psychology, religion, sex and marriage, education, politics, and ethics.
Of all the philosophical and religious works I’ve read over the past few years, from scriptures of the major religions to Plato, Confucius, and Marx, this is by far the most entertaining one I’ve come across (though being a collection of Russell’s best quotes, at least according to the editor, it has something of an unfair advantage). It is also the one that I found myself in closest agreement with. In most works of this kind, I find a number of things I completely agree with, other things I am not so sure or neutral about, and still others that I disagree with, sometimes strongly. In this case the vast majority fell into the first category. There were a few minor points I might question, and a few of his examples and analogies are slightly simplistic or just out of date (in two different references to human evolution, he mentions Piltdown Man, which is now known to be a forgery), and I’m a little dubious about some of his anthropological references. He often uses the same examples in different places (though this is understandable; I do the same myself). But these problems rarely negate his main points, which are almost all well made.
Russell is well known for his secular humanism, but not all he has to say about Christianity is critical (though a large portion of it is), and he targets other religions and philosophers as well. He is critical of Plato and Aristotle as well as Aquinas. The longest quote in this book tells the story of an imaginary debate between the Buddha and Nietzsche, in which the Buddha gets the upper hand (in fact Russell’s point was to attack Nietzsche’s ethical views). He also criticizes conservative thinking, war, narrow minded educational views, politicians, and our short-sighted profligacy with natural resources.
One reason Russell is so entertaining to read is his wit. It is with good reason that this collection is subtitled “Silhouettes in Satire”. He makes regular use of irony to get his point across. There are two many good examples to quote all of them, but here are some (the ones on Roosevelt and the use of natural resources seem particularly apt now):
“The view of the orthodox moralist (this includes the police and the magistrates, but hardly any modern educators) on the question of sex knowledge may, I fancy, be fairly stated as follows.... There is no doubt that sexual misconduct is promoted by sexual thoughts, and that the best road to virtue is to keep the young occupied in mind and body with matters wholly unconnected with sex. They must, therefore, be told nothing whatever about sex; they must as far as possible be prevented from talking about it with each other, and grownups must pretend that there is no such topic. It is possible by these means to keep a girl in ignorance until the night of her marriage, when it is to be expected that the facts will so shock her as to produce exactly that attitude towards sex which every sound moralist considers desirable in women.”
"Dread of disaster makes everybody act in the very way that increases the disaster. Psychologically the situation is analogous to that of people trampled to death when there is a panic in a theatre caused by a cry of 'Fire!' In the situation that existed in the great depression, things could only be set right by causing the idle plant to work again. But everybody felt that to do so was to risk almost certain loss. Within the framework of classical economics there was no solution. Roosevelt saved the situation by bold and heretical action. He spent billions of public money and created a huge public debt, but by so doing he revived production and brought his country out of the depression. Businessmen, who in spite of such a sharp lesson continued to believe in old-fashioned economics, were infinitely shocked, and although Roosevelt saved them from ruin, they continued to curse him and to speak of him as 'the madman in the White House.' Except for Fabre's investigation of the behavior of insects, I do not know any equally striking example of inability to learn from experience."
"The conscientious Radical is faced with great difficulties. He knows that he can increase his popularity by being false to his creed, and appealing to hatreds that have nothing to do with the reforms in which he believes. For example: a community that suffers from Japanese competition can easily be made indignant about bad labor conditions in Japan, and the unfair price-cutting that they render possible. But if the speaker goes on to say that it is Japanese employers who should be opposed, not Japanese employees, he will lose a large part of the sympathy of his audience. The Radical's only ultimate protection against demagogic appeals to misguided hatreds lies in education: he must convince intellectually a sufficient number of people to form the nucleus of a propagandist army. This is undoubtedly a difficult task, while the whole force of the State and the plutocracy is devoted to the fostering of unreason. But it is perhaps not so hopeless a task as many are now inclined to believe and in any case it cannot be shirked, since the appeal to unreasoning emotion can always be better done by charlatans."
"I cannot be content with a brief moment of riotous living followed by destitution, and however clever the scientists may be, there are some things that they cannot be expected to achieve. When they have used up all the easily available sources of energy that nature has scattered carelessly over the surface of our planet, they will have to resort to more laborious processes, and these will involve a gradual lowering of the standard of living. Modern industrialists are like men who have come for the first time upon fertile virgin land, and can live for a little while in great comfort with only a modicum of labor. It would be irrational to hope that the present heyday of industrialism will not develop far beyond its present level, but sooner or later, owing to the exhaustion of raw material, its capacity to supply human needs will diminish, not suddenly, but gradually. This could, of course, be prevented if men exercised any restraint or foresight in their present frenzied exploitation. Perhaps before it is too late they will learn to do so."
"There is little of the true philosophic spirit in Aquinas. He does not, like the Platonic Socrates, set out to follow wherever the argument may lead. He is not engaged in an inquiry, the result of which it is impossible to know in advance. Before he begins to philosophize, he already knows the truth; it is declared in the Catholic faith. If he can find apparently rational arguments for some parts of the faith, so much the better; if he cannot, he need only fall back on revelation. The finding of arguments for a conclusion given in advance is not philosophy, but special pleading."
"Two great religions - Buddhism and Christianity - have sought to extend to the whole human race the cooperative feeling that is spontaneous towards fellow tribesmen. They have preached the brotherhood of man, showing by the use of the word 'brotherhood' that they are attempting to extend beyond its natural bounds an emotional attitude which, in its origin, is biological. If we are all children of God, then we are all one family. But in practice those who in theory adopted this creed have always felt that those who did not adopt it were not children of God but children of Satan, and the old mechanism of hatred of those outside the tribe has returned, giving added vigor to the creed, but in a direction which diverted it from its original purpose. Religion, morality, economic self- interest, the mere pursuit of biological survival, all supply to our intelligence unanswerable arguments in favor of worldwide co-operation, but the old instincts that have come down to us from our tribal ancestors rise up in indignation, feeling that life would lose its savor if there were no one to hate, that anyone who could love such a scoundrel as So-and-so would be a worm, that struggle is the law of life, and that in a world where we all loved one another there would be nothing to live for."
"I do not pretend that birth control is the only way in which population can be kept from increasing. There are others, which, one must suppose, opponents of birth control would prefer. War . . . has hitherto been disappointing in this respect, but perhaps bacteriological war may prove more effective. If a Black Death could be spread throughout the world once in every generation survivors could procreate freely without making the world too full. There would be nothing in this to offend the consciences of the devout or to restrain the ambitions of nationalists. The state of affairs might be somewhat unpleasant, but what of that? Really high-minded people are indifferent to happiness, especially other people's."
"One critic takes me to task because I say that only evil passions prevent the realization of a better world, and goes on triumphantly to ask, 'are all human emotions necessarily evil?' In the very book that leads my critic to this objection, I say that what the world needs is Christian love, or compassion. This, surely, is an emotion, and, in saying that this is what the world needs, I am not suggesting reason as a driving force. I can only suppose that this emotion, because it is neither cruel nor destructive, is not attractive to the apostles of unreason."
"All who are not lunatics are agreed about certain things: That it is better to be alive than dead, better to be adequately fed than starved, better to be free than a slave. Many people desire those things only for themselves and their friends; they are quite content that their enemies should suffer. These people can be refuted by science: Mankind has become so much one family that we cannot insure our own prosperity- except by insuring that of everyone else. If you wish to be happy yourself, you must resign yourself to seeing others also happy."
Wednesday, August 31, 2011
What I've Been Reading -- June 2011 to August 2011, Part 1
I haven't read a huge variety of books over the summer, but nevertheless on writing about most of those I have read, I discovered that there is rather a lot of ground to be covered. So I am splitting my commentaries into two parts, in part to avoid having an enormously lengthy post, and in part because I haven't finished writing about a couple of the things I've read. So here is part 1; I hope to post part 2 sometime in the next week or so.
Complicity by Iain Banks
Complicity is a thriller by Iain Banks, who is the same person as the science-fiction writer Iain M. Banks (his mainstream – i.e., non-sci-fi – work is published under the former name). The main character is Cameron Colley a cynical left-wing journalist who has something of a drug problem (mainly amphetamines, alcohol and cigarettes), a married girlfriend, an addiction to a computer game vaguely resembling Civilization and an obvious dislike for authority. His part of the story, which takes up the majority of the novel, is told in the first person. However, certain parts (including the opening scene) are told in second person, something that is somewhat unusual in novels. In these parts, the main character is a serial killer who targets rich and powerful people who have egregiously abused their power. These parts are often quite graphic, though I was able to read them in part because I knew it was fiction, but also because I couldn’t help a slight degree of admiration for the killer’s inventiveness in making sure the victims were killed (or in one case assaulted) in ways that were “appropriate” to their crimes. Not that such vigilante justice should be considered appropriate, especially these sorts of brutal assaults, but if anyone (fictional or not) deserves such fates, it would be people like these (though in the case of the murderer’s first victim, we aren’t ever told exactly why he was targeted, though it is possible to guess).
As is often the case in Banks’s novels, it is not immediately obvious what the parts about Colley (and the occasional references to his past) and the parts about the murderer have to do with each other. The connections between different elements only begin to become clearer as the novel progresses. Naturally, much of the plot is driven by the mystery of the murderer’s identity and motives, and the attempts of the authorities to apprehend the killer. The novel is a fairly grim but exciting, and Banks raises some interesting questions about the nature of justice in a society where the powerful often get away with murder. He doesn’t really attempt to answer these questions definitively, but merely by raising them he ensures that Complicity is thought-provoking as well as darkly entertaining.
Philip K. Dick, Greg Egan, George R. R. Martin and Orson Scott Card
Off and on over the past few months I’ve read a number of sci-fi and fantasy short stories, including tales by Philip K. Dick, Greg Egan, George R. R. Martin and Orson Scott Card. Philip K. Dick’s stories tend to be a little bit bizarre and at the same time a bit old-fashioned (some of them resemble episodes of The Twilight Zone). Two of the ones I read recently were about different types of post-apocalyptic futures. In one the world is dominated by a caste system in which Asians are on top and whites (often dismissed by those on top as smelly and ape-like) on the bottom and most technology is forbidden (though some of the whites secretly preserve it – thus the story in some respects portrays whites as actually superior, despite the reversal of traditional racial stratification in America). In the other a technological society dominated by robots has been overthrown by an anarchist revolution, and an anarchist team traveling the country to stop attempts to reorganize society along technological lines encounters a hidden society held together by a robot that escaped. This story is also ambivalent, in this case about whether the anarchists or the robot and its followers are in the right.
Greg Egan’s stories are quite different from Dick’s, being more recent and focusing on hard science. The one I read most recently focuses on the nature of human consciousness, told through a character in some ways reminiscent of the protagonist of Dostoevsky’s Crime and Punishment. Other stories focus on advanced mathematics, genetics, and bioengineering. The George R. R. Martin story I read was set in the same world as his Song of Ice and Fire fantasy novels, though at an earlier time. The novels have recently gained additional prominence due to the adaptation of the first novel, Game of Thrones, as a popular television series on HBO. The novels are complex, with a vast number of characters, and grim, with major characters killed off with surprising frequency. The short story, one of several featuring the same two characters, is much simpler and less bleak, though it also has some moral ambiguity at its heart. Orson Scott Card’s short story features his character Alvin Maker in a 19th century America in which history has diverged somewhat from that of the real world. A few famous people from real history appear, though in this alternate America their life stories are different from those we are familiar with.
Meditations by Marcus Aurelius Antoninus
Meditations is a collection of writings by Marcus Aurelius Antoninus based on the principles of Stoic philosophy, originally titled in its original ancient Greek “thoughts addressed to himself”. Marcus Aurelius, as he is generally referred to, lived in the 2nd century CE, and reigned as Roman Emperor from 161 CE to 180 CE. At the time he took power, the empire was at its height after a series of generally successful reigns by his predecessors Trajan, Hadrian, and Antoninus Pius. During his reign, however, the Roman Empire was struck by wars with the Parthians and various German tribes, and most seriously by plague (believed to be smallpox or possibly measles). This was devastating to the empire, killing much of the population, eventually including Marcus Aurelius himself (the film Gladiator’s version of his death, which has his son Commodus murdering him for disinheriting him, is certainly false, especially since Marcus Aurelius had already made Commodus co-emperor). So despite being by most accounts a very capable ruler, Marcus Aurelius ruled in a time of great trouble that saw the beginning of Rome’s decline, and he also suffered substantial personal tragedy, including the deaths of many of his children in infancy or when they were still quite young. Perhaps these factors, as much as his educational background, encouraged his interest in Stoicism.
Among the notable themes of Meditations is the idea that life is short and each individual is in the grand scheme of things quite insignificant, so pursuing fame or praise is pointless. “This life is short. Both he that praiseth and he that is praised, he that remembers and he that is remembered, will soon be dust and ashes. Besides, it is one corner of this part of the world that thou art praised, and yet in this corner, thou hast not the joint praises of all men, no nor scarce of any one constantly. And yet the whole earth itself, what is it but as one point, in regard of the whole world [universe]?” In many ways, this resembles one of my favorite books in the Jewish scriptures, Ecclesiastes, with its constant refrain that everything is “meaningless” and there is “nothing new under the sun” (indeed, Marcus also says “there is nothing that is new”), or the soliloquy that William Shakespeare gave to Macbeth (“Tomorrow, tomorrow, and tomorrow creeps in this petty pace from day to day…”). He emphasizes several times that not only will everyone die, but eventually even those who remember them will be forgotten. But he also declares that death is not something to be feared, as humans are but “a mixture of elements, resolved into the same elements again.” Above all, he repeatedly reiterates the importance of rationality over emotion.
Marcus Aurelius, like most Stoic philosophers, placed little stock in worldly pleasure. He also expresses a low opinion of his own status as ruler and military leader declaring that “to [the title and credit of a philosopher] also is thy [i.e. his own] calling and profession repugnant. And yet his philosophy was not all negative. He repeatedly talks of the necessity of tolerating others, even those who do you harm, and of disregarding the insults and attacks of others: “It is reported unto thee, that such a one speaketh ill of thee. Well, that he speaketh ill of thee, that much is reported. But that thou art hurt thereby is not reported; that is the addition of opinion, which thou must exclude.” He also advocated acting positively for the benefit of others and of treating others kindly. He placed the good of the community over that of the individual (“That which is not good for the beehive cannot be good for the bee”), and went so far as to express the idea of a universal brotherhood of humankind: “And my nature is to be rational in all my actions and as a good and natural member of a city and commonwealth, towards my fellow members to sociably and kindly disposed and affected. My city and country as I am Antoninus is Rome; as a man, the whole world.” He refers several times to entity the translator renders as God, though this is not the Judeo-Christian god but the divine animating principle of Hellenistic and specifically Stoic philosophy (the one mention Marcus makes of Christians is negative), and he also refers to the traditional gods, though he condemns superstitious belief and takes a somewhat agnostic approach at times.
I don’t agree with all of the ideas Marcus Aurelius expresses or all the rules of behavior he prescribes, and even those that I do find reasonable are perhaps not so easy to follow (and judging by the occasional tone of strong self-criticism, he apparently found them difficult as well). But much of what he says is thought-provoking (though I should note that historians generally believe he was summarizing previous Stoic ideas rather than expressing completely original thoughts). I was particularly struck early on how just after coming off the internet where I had been gotten sidetracked into reading some particularly ridiculous comments by various people (something I generally try to avoid) practically the first thing I read was Marcus’s statement that one of the many people he thanked for making him what he was had taught him “not to be offended with idiots”. Again, I may not be able to follow such a stricture, but I certainly found it apt at the time. So, all in all, Meditations is an intriguing though not exciting read. However, if possible it would be best to seek out a more recent translation, rather than the very archaic one I read (though that probably helped it function better as a sleeping aid).
The Lions of Al-Rassan by Guy Gavriel Kay
Guy Gavriel Kay is a writer of fantasy and historical fiction who began his career in the field by assisting Christopher Tolkien in assembling J.R.R. Tolkien’s The Silmarillion. Other than The Fionavar Tapestry, the trilogy which formed his first published work, all of his novels have used places and periods in actual Earth history as direct inspiration. Thus, among the books I’ve read, Tigana is based in a country that resembles medieval Italy, A Song for Arbonne is based in a country that resembles medieval Provence (and has neighbors that resemble Italy and Germany), and the two-part work The Sarantine Mosaic is based in a land that resembles the Roman (Byzantine) Empire under Justinian (this work is the most closely based on real history of the ones I read, with numerous places, events and individual characters loosely or even fairly closely based on real places, events and people, though the ultimate course of events diverges from that in the real world). The Lions of Al-Rassan is likewise based on Earth history, in this case Spain (or Al-Andalus as the Moslems called it) at the time when the Muslim realms in the south were beginning to decline in the face of internal divisions and attacks from the Christian kingdoms in the north.
The land of Al-Rassan, or Esperana, is home to the people of three major religions, the Asharites (based on Moslems), the Jaddites (based on Christians), and the Kindath (based on the Jews). The Asharites of Al-Rassan have long dominated the peninsula, but their last caliphate has broken up into separate kingdoms, and the Jaddite kingdoms of the north are growing in power, and seek to reclaim the south of what they call Esperana for their religion. The Kindath are a minority without a homeland, usually tolerated by the Asharites (less so by the Jaddites) but occasionally subject to persecution by both. There are several major protagonists, including the female Kindath physician Jehane bet Ishak, the young Jaddite soldier Alvar de Pellino, the famed Jaddite commander Rodrigo Belmonte (loosely based on Rodrigo Díaz, better known as El Cid), and the Asharite poet and warrior Ammar ibn Khairan (more loosely based on several individuals from Moslem Spain).
The Lions of Al-Rassan is in many senses more of a historical novel than a fantasy, despite being based in a place other than the real world. Not only does the land closely resemble medieval Spain, but there is very little trace of the supernatural, unlike in most fantasy works (there is one character that can “see” close family members in visions, but that’s it). As in most of novels by Kay that I have read, there is a lot of political intrigue, and characters are faced with moral dilemmas and conflicts of loyalty. Kay likes dramatic scenes and revelations, which though they may occasionally stretch credulity, are nevertheless an attraction for me as I have always enjoyed such things in books (Gandalf’s appearance to Aragorn, Legolas, and Gimli, for example) or movies (such as Darth Vader’s revelation to Luke Skywalker in The Empire Strikes Back). Kay’s books always have several such scenes, and this one is no exception. He also is adept at creating emotional scenes, probably more so than any other fantasy writer I’ve read. While he doesn’t kill major characters with the regularity of George R.R. Martin, he does do so at times, and he doesn’t shy away from occasionally nasty scenes. But in general, this book, like his others, is largely about relationships and human feelings. With well-written prose, a dramatic plot, and complex characters, The Lions of Al-Rassan is equal to Kay’s other works, and is one of the better fantasies/historical novels out there.
Complicity by Iain Banks
Complicity is a thriller by Iain Banks, who is the same person as the science-fiction writer Iain M. Banks (his mainstream – i.e., non-sci-fi – work is published under the former name). The main character is Cameron Colley a cynical left-wing journalist who has something of a drug problem (mainly amphetamines, alcohol and cigarettes), a married girlfriend, an addiction to a computer game vaguely resembling Civilization and an obvious dislike for authority. His part of the story, which takes up the majority of the novel, is told in the first person. However, certain parts (including the opening scene) are told in second person, something that is somewhat unusual in novels. In these parts, the main character is a serial killer who targets rich and powerful people who have egregiously abused their power. These parts are often quite graphic, though I was able to read them in part because I knew it was fiction, but also because I couldn’t help a slight degree of admiration for the killer’s inventiveness in making sure the victims were killed (or in one case assaulted) in ways that were “appropriate” to their crimes. Not that such vigilante justice should be considered appropriate, especially these sorts of brutal assaults, but if anyone (fictional or not) deserves such fates, it would be people like these (though in the case of the murderer’s first victim, we aren’t ever told exactly why he was targeted, though it is possible to guess).
As is often the case in Banks’s novels, it is not immediately obvious what the parts about Colley (and the occasional references to his past) and the parts about the murderer have to do with each other. The connections between different elements only begin to become clearer as the novel progresses. Naturally, much of the plot is driven by the mystery of the murderer’s identity and motives, and the attempts of the authorities to apprehend the killer. The novel is a fairly grim but exciting, and Banks raises some interesting questions about the nature of justice in a society where the powerful often get away with murder. He doesn’t really attempt to answer these questions definitively, but merely by raising them he ensures that Complicity is thought-provoking as well as darkly entertaining.
Philip K. Dick, Greg Egan, George R. R. Martin and Orson Scott Card
Off and on over the past few months I’ve read a number of sci-fi and fantasy short stories, including tales by Philip K. Dick, Greg Egan, George R. R. Martin and Orson Scott Card. Philip K. Dick’s stories tend to be a little bit bizarre and at the same time a bit old-fashioned (some of them resemble episodes of The Twilight Zone). Two of the ones I read recently were about different types of post-apocalyptic futures. In one the world is dominated by a caste system in which Asians are on top and whites (often dismissed by those on top as smelly and ape-like) on the bottom and most technology is forbidden (though some of the whites secretly preserve it – thus the story in some respects portrays whites as actually superior, despite the reversal of traditional racial stratification in America). In the other a technological society dominated by robots has been overthrown by an anarchist revolution, and an anarchist team traveling the country to stop attempts to reorganize society along technological lines encounters a hidden society held together by a robot that escaped. This story is also ambivalent, in this case about whether the anarchists or the robot and its followers are in the right.
Greg Egan’s stories are quite different from Dick’s, being more recent and focusing on hard science. The one I read most recently focuses on the nature of human consciousness, told through a character in some ways reminiscent of the protagonist of Dostoevsky’s Crime and Punishment. Other stories focus on advanced mathematics, genetics, and bioengineering. The George R. R. Martin story I read was set in the same world as his Song of Ice and Fire fantasy novels, though at an earlier time. The novels have recently gained additional prominence due to the adaptation of the first novel, Game of Thrones, as a popular television series on HBO. The novels are complex, with a vast number of characters, and grim, with major characters killed off with surprising frequency. The short story, one of several featuring the same two characters, is much simpler and less bleak, though it also has some moral ambiguity at its heart. Orson Scott Card’s short story features his character Alvin Maker in a 19th century America in which history has diverged somewhat from that of the real world. A few famous people from real history appear, though in this alternate America their life stories are different from those we are familiar with.
Meditations by Marcus Aurelius Antoninus
Meditations is a collection of writings by Marcus Aurelius Antoninus based on the principles of Stoic philosophy, originally titled in its original ancient Greek “thoughts addressed to himself”. Marcus Aurelius, as he is generally referred to, lived in the 2nd century CE, and reigned as Roman Emperor from 161 CE to 180 CE. At the time he took power, the empire was at its height after a series of generally successful reigns by his predecessors Trajan, Hadrian, and Antoninus Pius. During his reign, however, the Roman Empire was struck by wars with the Parthians and various German tribes, and most seriously by plague (believed to be smallpox or possibly measles). This was devastating to the empire, killing much of the population, eventually including Marcus Aurelius himself (the film Gladiator’s version of his death, which has his son Commodus murdering him for disinheriting him, is certainly false, especially since Marcus Aurelius had already made Commodus co-emperor). So despite being by most accounts a very capable ruler, Marcus Aurelius ruled in a time of great trouble that saw the beginning of Rome’s decline, and he also suffered substantial personal tragedy, including the deaths of many of his children in infancy or when they were still quite young. Perhaps these factors, as much as his educational background, encouraged his interest in Stoicism.
Among the notable themes of Meditations is the idea that life is short and each individual is in the grand scheme of things quite insignificant, so pursuing fame or praise is pointless. “This life is short. Both he that praiseth and he that is praised, he that remembers and he that is remembered, will soon be dust and ashes. Besides, it is one corner of this part of the world that thou art praised, and yet in this corner, thou hast not the joint praises of all men, no nor scarce of any one constantly. And yet the whole earth itself, what is it but as one point, in regard of the whole world [universe]?” In many ways, this resembles one of my favorite books in the Jewish scriptures, Ecclesiastes, with its constant refrain that everything is “meaningless” and there is “nothing new under the sun” (indeed, Marcus also says “there is nothing that is new”), or the soliloquy that William Shakespeare gave to Macbeth (“Tomorrow, tomorrow, and tomorrow creeps in this petty pace from day to day…”). He emphasizes several times that not only will everyone die, but eventually even those who remember them will be forgotten. But he also declares that death is not something to be feared, as humans are but “a mixture of elements, resolved into the same elements again.” Above all, he repeatedly reiterates the importance of rationality over emotion.
Marcus Aurelius, like most Stoic philosophers, placed little stock in worldly pleasure. He also expresses a low opinion of his own status as ruler and military leader declaring that “to [the title and credit of a philosopher] also is thy [i.e. his own] calling and profession repugnant. And yet his philosophy was not all negative. He repeatedly talks of the necessity of tolerating others, even those who do you harm, and of disregarding the insults and attacks of others: “It is reported unto thee, that such a one speaketh ill of thee. Well, that he speaketh ill of thee, that much is reported. But that thou art hurt thereby is not reported; that is the addition of opinion, which thou must exclude.” He also advocated acting positively for the benefit of others and of treating others kindly. He placed the good of the community over that of the individual (“That which is not good for the beehive cannot be good for the bee”), and went so far as to express the idea of a universal brotherhood of humankind: “And my nature is to be rational in all my actions and as a good and natural member of a city and commonwealth, towards my fellow members to sociably and kindly disposed and affected. My city and country as I am Antoninus is Rome; as a man, the whole world.” He refers several times to entity the translator renders as God, though this is not the Judeo-Christian god but the divine animating principle of Hellenistic and specifically Stoic philosophy (the one mention Marcus makes of Christians is negative), and he also refers to the traditional gods, though he condemns superstitious belief and takes a somewhat agnostic approach at times.
I don’t agree with all of the ideas Marcus Aurelius expresses or all the rules of behavior he prescribes, and even those that I do find reasonable are perhaps not so easy to follow (and judging by the occasional tone of strong self-criticism, he apparently found them difficult as well). But much of what he says is thought-provoking (though I should note that historians generally believe he was summarizing previous Stoic ideas rather than expressing completely original thoughts). I was particularly struck early on how just after coming off the internet where I had been gotten sidetracked into reading some particularly ridiculous comments by various people (something I generally try to avoid) practically the first thing I read was Marcus’s statement that one of the many people he thanked for making him what he was had taught him “not to be offended with idiots”. Again, I may not be able to follow such a stricture, but I certainly found it apt at the time. So, all in all, Meditations is an intriguing though not exciting read. However, if possible it would be best to seek out a more recent translation, rather than the very archaic one I read (though that probably helped it function better as a sleeping aid).
The Lions of Al-Rassan by Guy Gavriel Kay
Guy Gavriel Kay is a writer of fantasy and historical fiction who began his career in the field by assisting Christopher Tolkien in assembling J.R.R. Tolkien’s The Silmarillion. Other than The Fionavar Tapestry, the trilogy which formed his first published work, all of his novels have used places and periods in actual Earth history as direct inspiration. Thus, among the books I’ve read, Tigana is based in a country that resembles medieval Italy, A Song for Arbonne is based in a country that resembles medieval Provence (and has neighbors that resemble Italy and Germany), and the two-part work The Sarantine Mosaic is based in a land that resembles the Roman (Byzantine) Empire under Justinian (this work is the most closely based on real history of the ones I read, with numerous places, events and individual characters loosely or even fairly closely based on real places, events and people, though the ultimate course of events diverges from that in the real world). The Lions of Al-Rassan is likewise based on Earth history, in this case Spain (or Al-Andalus as the Moslems called it) at the time when the Muslim realms in the south were beginning to decline in the face of internal divisions and attacks from the Christian kingdoms in the north.
The land of Al-Rassan, or Esperana, is home to the people of three major religions, the Asharites (based on Moslems), the Jaddites (based on Christians), and the Kindath (based on the Jews). The Asharites of Al-Rassan have long dominated the peninsula, but their last caliphate has broken up into separate kingdoms, and the Jaddite kingdoms of the north are growing in power, and seek to reclaim the south of what they call Esperana for their religion. The Kindath are a minority without a homeland, usually tolerated by the Asharites (less so by the Jaddites) but occasionally subject to persecution by both. There are several major protagonists, including the female Kindath physician Jehane bet Ishak, the young Jaddite soldier Alvar de Pellino, the famed Jaddite commander Rodrigo Belmonte (loosely based on Rodrigo Díaz, better known as El Cid), and the Asharite poet and warrior Ammar ibn Khairan (more loosely based on several individuals from Moslem Spain).
The Lions of Al-Rassan is in many senses more of a historical novel than a fantasy, despite being based in a place other than the real world. Not only does the land closely resemble medieval Spain, but there is very little trace of the supernatural, unlike in most fantasy works (there is one character that can “see” close family members in visions, but that’s it). As in most of novels by Kay that I have read, there is a lot of political intrigue, and characters are faced with moral dilemmas and conflicts of loyalty. Kay likes dramatic scenes and revelations, which though they may occasionally stretch credulity, are nevertheless an attraction for me as I have always enjoyed such things in books (Gandalf’s appearance to Aragorn, Legolas, and Gimli, for example) or movies (such as Darth Vader’s revelation to Luke Skywalker in The Empire Strikes Back). Kay’s books always have several such scenes, and this one is no exception. He also is adept at creating emotional scenes, probably more so than any other fantasy writer I’ve read. While he doesn’t kill major characters with the regularity of George R.R. Martin, he does do so at times, and he doesn’t shy away from occasionally nasty scenes. But in general, this book, like his others, is largely about relationships and human feelings. With well-written prose, a dramatic plot, and complex characters, The Lions of Al-Rassan is equal to Kay’s other works, and is one of the better fantasies/historical novels out there.
Wednesday, August 24, 2011
Tripoli and More
The big news in the past few days has been the sudden breakthrough by the rebels fighting Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi into Tripoli, the country's capital. Though the rebels had been making significant progress in the last few weeks, particularly in the west, their sudden advance coordinated with an uprising in Tripoli itself was a surprise. Though initial reports exaggerated the extent of their victory and intense fighting no doubt lies ahead, at least until Gaddafi himself is captured or killed, it is still an impressive achievement.
Of course while the overthrow of a dictator is something to celebrate, there is still no guarantee that Libya will end up much better off, as there is still danger that it could descend into chaos. But with a sufficient effort by the Libyans themselves, strong support from the West and other allies, and a dose of luck, Libya can become a much better place than it was before -- once Gaddafi is completely defeated, that is. Until that happens, everything is still up in the air.
Here are some interesting links on a variety of other topics.
On the intellectual paucity of our times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/14/opinion/sunday/the-elusive-big-idea.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all
While this writer, like most people, may have a slightly rosier view of the past than is warranted and thus be judging the current age too harshly (it's hard to judge these things objectively without the perspective gained through the passage of time), he makes some interesting points.
On the recently deceased Jerry Leiber (and Nickolas Ashford):
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2011/08/jerry-leiber-and-nickolas-ashford.html
There's no question that Leiber and Stoller should be numbered among the originators of rock and roll. Lieber also had respect for those who came after him; he once said the Beatles were "second to none".
Some articles from a few weeks ago on the debt deal (these two are among the more critical; there were a few that made reasonable arguments why the deal wasn't so awful but unfortunately I didn't copy those links at the time):
http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-chait/92991/did-obama-get-rolled
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/01/opinion/the-president-surrenders-on-debt-ceiling.html
My favorite part of Krugman's piece is his analogy about that "those demanding spending cuts now are like medieval doctors who treated the sick by bleeding them, and thereby made them even sicker."
For a closer look at one of the vital programs endangered by the budget cutting obsession:
http://www.economist.com/node/18958475
This is a great illustration of all the harm that can be caused by the budget slashing approach, most importantly because people depend on these programs, but also because they stimulate economic activity.
Of course while the overthrow of a dictator is something to celebrate, there is still no guarantee that Libya will end up much better off, as there is still danger that it could descend into chaos. But with a sufficient effort by the Libyans themselves, strong support from the West and other allies, and a dose of luck, Libya can become a much better place than it was before -- once Gaddafi is completely defeated, that is. Until that happens, everything is still up in the air.
Here are some interesting links on a variety of other topics.
On the intellectual paucity of our times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/14/opinion/sunday/the-elusive-big-idea.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all
While this writer, like most people, may have a slightly rosier view of the past than is warranted and thus be judging the current age too harshly (it's hard to judge these things objectively without the perspective gained through the passage of time), he makes some interesting points.
On the recently deceased Jerry Leiber (and Nickolas Ashford):
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2011/08/jerry-leiber-and-nickolas-ashford.html
There's no question that Leiber and Stoller should be numbered among the originators of rock and roll. Lieber also had respect for those who came after him; he once said the Beatles were "second to none".
Some articles from a few weeks ago on the debt deal (these two are among the more critical; there were a few that made reasonable arguments why the deal wasn't so awful but unfortunately I didn't copy those links at the time):
http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-chait/92991/did-obama-get-rolled
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/01/opinion/the-president-surrenders-on-debt-ceiling.html
My favorite part of Krugman's piece is his analogy about that "those demanding spending cuts now are like medieval doctors who treated the sick by bleeding them, and thereby made them even sicker."
For a closer look at one of the vital programs endangered by the budget cutting obsession:
http://www.economist.com/node/18958475
This is a great illustration of all the harm that can be caused by the budget slashing approach, most importantly because people depend on these programs, but also because they stimulate economic activity.
Friday, August 12, 2011
Defining a Terrorist
One big news event of the last month that I haven’t mentioned at all in my blog is the mass slaughter perpetrated by a self-obsessed right-wing maniac in Norway. I don’t want to go into all the depressing details (which anyone who follows the news will know most of anyway), but there is one interesting discussion that the tragedy has given extra impetus to, and that is arguments about the definition of a “terrorist” and the tendency in recent years to associate the term exclusively with Muslims, an issue I've touched on briefly in the past. This article summarizes the debate well, but I’d like to add a few thoughts as well.
First of all, the assertion that someone like Brevik who commits terrorist acts cannot possibly be considered a Christian while someone like Osama bin Laden can be called a Muslim is obviously absurd. History is full of brutal acts committed in the name of Christian religion that easily fit that modern definition of terrorism. In modern times, religious sectarianism was the main motivation behind the terrorist acts of groups like the Catholic IRA and the Protestant unionists in Northern Ireland. Religion also has motivated crazy people in the US to murder doctors who provided abortions (or even make death threats against John Lennon for accurately stating that the Beatles were more popular than Jesus – in Britain at least, which is what he was talking about). Sure, Christians can argue that the people who committed such acts did so in violation of the true tenets of the religion, but then Muslims can make the same assertion about terrorists who profess to be Muslims. As for the argument that that the Quran itself is at fault, while there certainly are some passages in the Quran that can be used to support jihad, there are also many that clearly restrict the use of violence. And verses in the Bible have also been used to justify all sorts of reprehensible behavior. So either there can be such a thing as a “Christian terrorist” or there is no such thing as a “Muslim terrorist” either.
In fact, the term “terrorist” is widely misused. As an example, I recall that a number of years ago, the PKK (the Kurdish militant group that has been fighting the Turkish government) blew up a bridge as a truck full of Turkish soldiers was crossing it, killing them. A US official condemned this act as “terrorism”. But given that the target was soldiers who were on active duty and engaged in hunting down the PKK, this was not terrorism at all, but simply an ambush. While the PKK has certainly engaged in acts in the past that fit the definition of terrorism, in this case, the US was merely pandering to its Turkish allies by using the term. In fact, some of the Turkish government’s actions in this conflict should also be considered terrorism, as they involved arresting, torturing and killing civilians in an effort to frighten the Kurds and discourage them from supporting the PKK. Likewise, when Uyghur militants attack Chinese police, the Chinese government calls it terrorism, even though an attack on armed police officers is hardly terrorism in comparison to some of the actions the Chinese have engaged in to terrorize the Uyghurs and Tibetans. It could even be argued that the US has engaged in terrorism, such as in the firebombing of Dresden or the use of cluster bombs in civilian areas. Whether or not these actions are called terrorism (I would at least define the firebombing of Dresden as terrorism), it is clear that nations can engage in terrorism as much as militant groups can, and often on a grander scale.
So while there is a lot of room for argument about what particular acts qualify as terrorism, it is obvious that the exclusive association of the term with radical Muslims is wrong and even dangerous, as it encourages a prejudice against Muslims in general that is all too common among some small-brained people in the West (and elsewhere). If nothing else, terrible events like the one that took place in Norway serve as reminder that radical Islamists do not have a monopoly on reprehensible political violence targeting civilians.
First of all, the assertion that someone like Brevik who commits terrorist acts cannot possibly be considered a Christian while someone like Osama bin Laden can be called a Muslim is obviously absurd. History is full of brutal acts committed in the name of Christian religion that easily fit that modern definition of terrorism. In modern times, religious sectarianism was the main motivation behind the terrorist acts of groups like the Catholic IRA and the Protestant unionists in Northern Ireland. Religion also has motivated crazy people in the US to murder doctors who provided abortions (or even make death threats against John Lennon for accurately stating that the Beatles were more popular than Jesus – in Britain at least, which is what he was talking about). Sure, Christians can argue that the people who committed such acts did so in violation of the true tenets of the religion, but then Muslims can make the same assertion about terrorists who profess to be Muslims. As for the argument that that the Quran itself is at fault, while there certainly are some passages in the Quran that can be used to support jihad, there are also many that clearly restrict the use of violence. And verses in the Bible have also been used to justify all sorts of reprehensible behavior. So either there can be such a thing as a “Christian terrorist” or there is no such thing as a “Muslim terrorist” either.
In fact, the term “terrorist” is widely misused. As an example, I recall that a number of years ago, the PKK (the Kurdish militant group that has been fighting the Turkish government) blew up a bridge as a truck full of Turkish soldiers was crossing it, killing them. A US official condemned this act as “terrorism”. But given that the target was soldiers who were on active duty and engaged in hunting down the PKK, this was not terrorism at all, but simply an ambush. While the PKK has certainly engaged in acts in the past that fit the definition of terrorism, in this case, the US was merely pandering to its Turkish allies by using the term. In fact, some of the Turkish government’s actions in this conflict should also be considered terrorism, as they involved arresting, torturing and killing civilians in an effort to frighten the Kurds and discourage them from supporting the PKK. Likewise, when Uyghur militants attack Chinese police, the Chinese government calls it terrorism, even though an attack on armed police officers is hardly terrorism in comparison to some of the actions the Chinese have engaged in to terrorize the Uyghurs and Tibetans. It could even be argued that the US has engaged in terrorism, such as in the firebombing of Dresden or the use of cluster bombs in civilian areas. Whether or not these actions are called terrorism (I would at least define the firebombing of Dresden as terrorism), it is clear that nations can engage in terrorism as much as militant groups can, and often on a grander scale.
So while there is a lot of room for argument about what particular acts qualify as terrorism, it is obvious that the exclusive association of the term with radical Muslims is wrong and even dangerous, as it encourages a prejudice against Muslims in general that is all too common among some small-brained people in the West (and elsewhere). If nothing else, terrible events like the one that took place in Norway serve as reminder that radical Islamists do not have a monopoly on reprehensible political violence targeting civilians.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
