It was as I began to think of what I would say in response to the historic Iraq election last Sunday [the 30th of January] that I, for the first time, really questioned the purpose of all of this. By which I mean this blog. In a little over two weeks from now, I (and I alone, as far as I know) will quietly celebrate this Center's 2nd anniversary. [That is today.] On the eve of that milestone, I ask myself: What is the point of this? In all honesty, who is actually reading this thing? Mr. Lederer, I know you do. (And by the way, commenting should be up and running as soon as I can talk some sense to these Blogger Help people; just kidding, you guys are great.)

Well, this is indeed a ramble. Perhaps the first actual "random rant" in a long time, if not ever. But anyways, I ain't going to quit now. I got a domain last November, and I'm not stopping this shit until I get that up and running. More immediately, I got to get this comment thing going again ... But you all don't have to worry about that.

So a lot of people ask me: What do you believe? I think that's phrased wrong, because it's really not a matter of belief as much as it is what I think. I consider myself rational, for starters. Hopefully, I am. At least most of the time. People tell me: You must have biases, ideological ... Look. I don't want my mind defined. Do I have an ideology? I believe I've answered that before. But this time I am going to lay out my opinions, or if you will, my beliefs. Here we go:

One cannot know anything, for 'knowing' to the fullest extent is simply not possible. There are simply too many variables, points of consideration, whatever. It is too much for the mind to really process and understand the totality of any single thing. There is a range of comprehension.

People are generally humane and tolerant and to at least some degree sympathetic. Of course, there are bad people, and evil people. There always have been. That poses the question of what is 'evil', is it relative or absolute or what, you know. Well, it is a lot easier to distinguish evil from good than evil from a lesser evil. Some things are in the eye of the beholder, and I suppose evil can be one of those things. (See below)

Language is the most powerful tool ever created; with it, essentially all else follows. It is a tool of control, primarily. Communication as well, yes, but that is often directed toward the purposes of dissemination (or propagation, from which we have 'propaganda') and manipulation, and thus control. In this instance, it is control of thought we are speaking of, as the words we speak and write are directly tied to what we think. Therefore, what we 'know' to be truth.

Our insignificance as a species in relation to the known universe is so profound that it nears the point of absurdity that one could possibly think it was all made for us and nothing else. Which brings me to the following:

What is religion? Personally, I see three principal elements to it: the faith, the community, and the insitution. I observe of the three the faith to be the most important, and the institution the most dangerous. The communities brought together and enriched by their respective common faiths is the most inspiring example: religion is a great, effective way to bring people together. Shared purpose is a consequence of it, and I think the communal aspect provides some sort of key toward the perception of the unknown.

Faith is a complex thing. I don't 'know' it, but I have some thoughts regarding God, a proposition which in of itself appears wholly arrogant for the simple reason that God must be so beyond comprehension that the very idea of pretending to define it would be, well, wholly arrogant and, indeed, quite stupid. But I do have thoughts. After all (and I'm borrowing this paraphrase from someone whose name escapes me at the moment), why would one believe that God denied us the use of the minds He created for us, right?

The truth is, I'm a kind of agnostic. I don't think one can either prove nor disprove God's existence. To do either would be, as I have said, arrogant far beyond anyone's understanding, much less my own. Carl Sagan, a great scientific 'populizer', wrote that we don't have as much neurons as there are atoms in a grain of salt. How, then, could we even pretend to 'know' something as great as the universe, much less 'know' what God is? (See above)

I don't like absolutes, but I feel like I can say that I will never (or at least try to) assume anything. Accordingly, I will never attempt to 'know' one's intentions. All we can perceive are (perceived) actions, at least their consequences - not much else in that respect. This brings me to something else here:

Everything is in the mind: perception, most notably, from which all else follows suit. Our sense of reality and truth, for instance, forms the core of our psychology. And the idea of 'intelligence' is a wholly complex one, which cannot be assigned to a meaningless IQ number. I am not going to even pretend to think to know what intelligence, or even consciousness, really is. I suppose I will never be able to know. At least I can accept that much. Truth is painfully relative, and is thus unknowable. Our search for it can be said to be neverending for that reason. It is our humanity that we must fight to protect.

The concentration of power is eminently dangerous, and if history should serve to be any sort of guide, we ought to have learned by now that power left in a few hands (either effectively or formally) is an ominous prospect.

Social harmony is more important for the common good than social hierarchy. How society should be structured is largely dependent on the people's will, which should appear obvious. It may be asked: Am I a populist? Well, I may hold beliefs that could appear to sound populist in nature, but I can't say if I am a doctrinaire populist or not, or a doctrinaire anything. And that's another thing, come to think of it ...

I don't like doctrines or ideologies. Really, I don't like anything that, in effect, limits the range of thought. I have a strong distrust of absolutist and extremist thinking. It's a waste of time, in that it fails to acknowledge the world's overwhelming complexities, and so is downright arrogant in its willfull distortion of the overwhelming complexity of the world into false dichotomies of black and white or good and bad.

Morality does not exist in a vacuum. The idea of moral universalism is a noble one albeit impractical for the reason that we're human, after all. One can say that, in principle, murder is always wrong and that every life is equal, but whether one can believe that given every circumstance is a completely different matter. Recent history is rife with such examples.

We are all very lucky to inhabit this planet, and as such we are all really in this together. Nationality, then, shouldn't matter so much. Some observe that loyalty to a 'nation' is irrational. Nevertheless, I am very proud to have been born in the United States. I do love this country. That is why I am particularly critical of the present administration. I feel like it is attempting to take what is great about America away from all of us, and in its place impose a radicalist military-security state in which the traditional notions of individual liberty and progress are marginalized and reversed. I do not want to know what may take its stead. I do not pretend to predict the future, but I shudder at the thought of four more years and all that can happen in that space of time, and all that could entail for us Americans and no doubt the world.

At this point, you are probably asking yourself: This guy must be left of center, right? A liberal, no? Well, I'd hate to have anyone classify my mind, but there are some things of liberal philosophy that are agreeable to me, as there are of conservative philosophy. I oppose this present government for the simple reason that it appears to be the most anti-American of any we've had. I am serious. This should seem obvious, I think. Now, and I must make this clear, I am not saying that those who voted for the incumbents in 2004 (like my brother), or voted them in the first time in 2000 (like my father), are anti-American, of course. I guess they were not allowed to know. For the proverbial wool had been pulled over our eyes not once but twice, and sometime down the road we will pay a terrible price for our collective gullibility. I don't want it to happen, either; I hope to God it doesn't. I am reminded of Jonathan Swift's angel, who holds the looking-glass and, as she turns it, shows to the masses their interest in their ruin and their ruin in their interest. But what of my political beliefs?

First off, let me say the following: I do not like politics. By that I mean I do not like the games and the politicking. Political thought, however, that's interesting. And there's a lot of hope, hope for humanity, within that. The maneuvering, the PR images and the symbols and the bullshit, the partisan rhetoric and the 'talking points' ... to hell with it. We don't need it, and all it does is sully the discourse and, really, help destroy what is great about politics. That is, its capacity to change the world for the better. But I digress.

I believe power carries with it an enormous obligation. It would follow that concentrated power, then, would lead to concentrated responsibility. But in a representative system such as ours, that responsibility is shared by all. You, me, and every citizen in this nation shares some part of the responsibility for the actions of our government. That is no small issue. Not at all. In a democratic country such as ours, which I am very proud to have been born into, public accountability is one of the best things for which we as citizens can hope.

There is, I think, no absolute delineation of 'good' and 'evil', and I know that this sounds very pessimistic, but rather a continuum or a range of evilness in this world. So it's not a matter of ethically 'best', but 'least worst'. And I say with the deepest sincerity that we live in the least worst nation in the entire world. I see how it can really reflect how sad the state of the world is when one can say that, I suppose, but I do believe it. I say 'nation', keep in mind, meaning the government under which we are ... well, governed. I have immensely more admiration and optimism for this country than the government, that's for damn sure. Of course, I mean the people. I don't think the state and the people ought ever be thought of as one. In a democracy such as ours, the state is supposed to represent the people, but the two remain distinct. Can't forget that. Unless, of course, we "accept totalitarian doctrine" and believe that the people and the state are one, as one of the great sages of the twentieth century reminds us.

There are four major things that I cannot seem to tolerate when I think about it, cannot accept: assumptions, generalizations, absolutes, and extremes. They're intolerable because they simplify and muddy things to the point where rationality is out of the discussion. And rationality is something we really need to hold onto as a species, particularly in this new century, when times appear more dangerous than they ever have been. That may sound like a generalization right there, but I hold it true. Well, more dangerous than ever except for when the western hemisphere was brought to the brink of self-destruction 43 years ago, and then saved from certain oblivion by the single word of a Soviet submarine commander. But that was before my time ...

(. . .WRAPPING THIS UP, PROMISE. . .)

We are four years into the 21st century. Many questions arise, seemingly out of nowhere but the interminable ticker-tape of the present: Where are we heading? What lies there? How can we get to it? I do not pretend to know the answers to any of these. All I know, or think I know, is that as of now the world is fucked. Sorry about the cynicism, but that's how it seems to be faring. Now, this sorry state of things won't last forever, I hope, but only God knows when exactly it will end. The fucked state of the planet, that is, not the planet itself. Because this world is so filled with hate, and yet so filled with everything else to counteract it, we must harness all the energy we can to, essentially, get people to chill again. Enough with the beheading and the bombing and the screaming and the threatening, I say. Enough! For this is a universal call for sanity, and for reason. A new enlightenment, that is what we all need.

In the end, my thoughts and beliefs matter little. Not to you, not to society, not to the world. Hardly anyone actually reads this blog with any sort of regularity. Once I get that domain to work (I've been pressed for time these past few months), that should help, but still I will be but a shadow in the dust compared to so many of those other blogs you've heard of. You know, the ones that go after journalists and discredit their reputations. But that ain't what I'm here for. For two years, I have written whatever the hell I want without fear of government reprisal (although this site has been accessed at least once by the Defense Department) or censorship from 'the Man', whoever he is. I probably by now have some sort of very small readership internationally, from what I used to be able to see with the old counter I had. (There were some hits from Iceland, Japan, Israel, some others ...) But that counter broke down, as you may know. That sucks, but I press on, day by day. Just look at that Archive over to your left: Two years worth of insight and a little funny, and some other stuff not worth mentioning. It has seldom been random or ranting, but I take pride that ... well, someone's gotta be looking at this, right? (I know I am.) But also, whatever I say here will not change much, if really anything. There are millions of blogs out there, too: the probability one finding mine at random is like one in a ... well, a few million, maybe. They're better off buying 50 lotto tickets and selling the house, talking about a good chance ...

Anyway, all you need to know is the following: in a nutshell, I believe that we're all in this together. That is, we all live on the same planet, breathe the same air, etc. Maybe if we all one day acknowledge that fact, we might have some unity, and some peace.

It was fun doing this thing; maybe another year and then I will probably shut it down for good. But not yet. No, not yet.

Another thing: Five days remain until the posting of aforesaid belief list, but I should add that it is quite long, although unfortunately not definitive. If I really wanted to write out what it's in my head you'd never want to read it, probably. It'd fill a library, for God's sakes. And that's not arrogance, either; I'm serious. Again, five more days.

In two weeks, on the eve of the 2nd anniversary of this blog, I will publish what I hope to be a definitive list of my beliefs. (By the way, I had gotten over the flu a week ago; sorry about the confusion, if there was any.)

One week remains until the Iraq election, in which 16 million registered voters will risk life and limb in order to elect their 'transitional' legislative body, from a long list of parties whose names are not known (not to mention any of their platforms). So, uh, good luck. Personally, this does not bode well for either the Iraqi people or us. It looks like we're headed for disaster here, with 20% of the population already effectively nullified (after the Sunni parties pledged to not take part), and a sectarian civil war appearing nearly imminent, as many commentators have noted. I guess we'll have to see, then, but I hope the new government will be recognized as legitimate, and the elections free and fair and not just seen as such. But this, I admit, is a tall order for a country in the middle of war with no real democratic tradition whatsoever. At least we're putting in place a process, so it doesn't matter if only 50,000 people actually vote, right? Of course ...

Bush was coronated with much fanfare and excessive 'security' entailments today. The number of guards was astounding, which formed a thick black line from the aerial view that effectively barred any sort of mass participation. Nonetheless, protests shown through, though marginalized. In his second inaugural speech, Bush in his 17 minutes at the podium did not have the time to mention the war in Iraq or begin to address the serious situation we are in but found the ability to throw in the word 'freedom' 25 times (not counting 'liberty' or 'free'). As many expected, myself included, nice, pretty words to mask uncomfortable if not disturbing realities. One sentence had me almost laugh out loud, in which we are told that our government (or, in his world, 'America') "will not impose our own style of government on the unwilling." What? Perhaps it was some, I don't know, transcription error or something: he couldn't of said that, could he? Anyway, it was a speech completely void of meaning and emblematic of the duplicity and opportunistic hypocrisy that we have come to see in the past four years. And (I had thought that I would never have to say this) also for the next four. Having won just about 50.73% of the popular vote, our duly-elected President strides as if he indeed has been given some sort of mandate with which to change the world, and our future. The door is open to the second term. Knock it out the park. Let us get out of your way first ...

Today commemorates the birth of one of the greatest civil rights leaders in our history: Martin Luther King. It is tragic that his words that preached nonviolence appeared to have amounted to little toward that direction, and quite ironic that the rulers at the top take their holiday in his name while doing everything to subvert his dream of peace and tranquility; in particular, their classic divide-and-conquer method that granted them a slim majority in the 2004 election. Was MLK an idealist? I don't know. All that I can hope is that we serve his memory well by pushing for change in this new century that will benefit all, and not benefit some at the expense of all others.

President-elect George W. Bush has said that November's election has shown that the American public has 'ratified' his policies, in particular that which led to our embroiled presence in Iraq. Moreover, according to today's Washington Post, he honestly believes that there is now "no reason to hold any administration officials accountable for mistakes or misjudgments in prewar planning or managing the violent aftermath."* The first claim is just not true, and the second is sickening and outrageous. Yes, Bush won election with a narrow majority of electorate, but this is not a clear-cut affirmation of his policies. Any serious poll can demonstrate that the majority of the American people have serious reservations, if not tacit opposition to, his domestic policies, and that the majority have turned against the Iraq war. Secondly, what is all this about there being "no reason" to hold the public leaders that sent our soldiers to die without just cause accountable? Holding the government accountable is one of the hallmarks of our democracy, especially when we launch an aggressive war that has effectively crippled the fight against al Qaeda and increased the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Not to mention, of course, the 1,350 American and 16,000 Iraqi dead. Alas, no accountability . . .

*Jim VandeHei & Michael A. Fletcher, "Bush Says Election Ratified Iraq Policy," 16 January 2005, A1.

Here's a bullshit study. Scientists looked at two wholly disparate trends at said: 'Holy shit! These are somehow linked! ONE CAUSES THE OTHER!!' Don't buy this. I don't ...

The Senate confirmation hearings are scheduled to begin this Thursday for Alberto Gonzales, Mr. Bush's pick for Attorney General. The day he is confirmed as our chief law enforcer is the day Lady Liberty gets punched in the face. Good God ...

The hiatus is over, as is 2004. A miserable year that was. And what a horrible note it ended on. I am very sorry that I did not talk about it, but what was there to say? After all, no one is really reading this, right? (Scratch that.) Anyway, my fellow bloggers at the scene fulfilled their roles; I failed mine. I couldn't think what to say, really. It is a tragedy. A major tragedy. I think the toll is nearing something like 150,000. Jesus. Anyway, happy new year.

Hail to the Chief ...

Before I go on hiatus for the remainder of the year, it's time right about now for my summary of 2004 (unless, of course, something noteworthy happens in the next two weeks), and all of the crazy shit that went down this year. And crazy it was. Alright then:

Well, to begin there was the Superbowl and the whole ridiculous controversy over Janet Jackson (wasn't that stupid? I mean, in hindsight do you still give a shit?!), as well as the ensuing FCC crackdown.

The election year began in March, with Bush's campaign launching one of the most negative campaigns in American history against Senator Kerry, who never really got a platform going (that, I believe, was why he wasn't elected; the disaffected voters who cast their ballot for the President in 2000 simply did not see an alternative in Kerry, as he really didn't provide one).

The war in Iraq took a decided turn for the worse in April, when a mob burned and mutilated four contractors in Falluja, leading some to wonder whether it would mirror Somalia (it didn't; we're still in Iraq, over 8 months later). And in May prisoner torture at Abu Ghraib was disclosed; as I recall, initially we were all told that Pvt. England and the rest were just a 'few bad apples', of course, and were not links in a chain of command, as investigative reporter Seymour Hersh would later elaborate upon meticulously in his expose.

Muckraker and self-righteous filmmaker Michael Moore released his film, Fahrenheit 9/11, through an independent distributor on June 25 after Disney CEO Michael 'Craven Coward' Eisner balked on the plan. The film, intended to oust the president and his administration in the coming election, was a huge success; and, it grossed highest in cinema history for a documentary film, although its status as such was heatedly argued in light of its prevalent bias against, well, Mr. Bush, and its extensive distortions and misrepresentations. (I had written a review of the film, and I liked it a lot; however, as time went by my appreciation of it had diminished. I still will not compare him to Leni Riefenstahl, as many actually did.)

During the summer months, we had the ludicrous Swift Boat shit; what a fucking waste of time: "Was John Kerry really in Cambodia in Christmas 1969? ... Did he throw away the medals, or the ribbons in protest while he preached anti-American hate speech with Hanoi Jane?? We'll be right back, after ..." Jesus. How did we let this happen? It was a damn shame.

And then, the Republican National Convention ... in New York City, apparently a major Republican stronghold in which there was no opportunism at all and the tragedies of 9/11 were not used as the theme out of respect for the victims; oh, how I wish: of course, the exact opposite is what happened. In essence, the RNC was occupying enemy territory; many said it shamelessly exploited the September 11 attacks in order to lend some sort of credence to its agenda. I am, well, inclined to agree.

Election 2004: Wow. I was shocked, but mostly because I had assumed it would be closer than it turned out to be; in fact, I predicted it would be closer than 2000. Then again, I also predicted a few times that Bush would still win anyway, although it felt wary of admitting it. Fuck! Bush had won four more years, didn't he? How the hell did that happen? Wait ... was it stolen? Thus went the conspiracy theories. But there is some reason to 'em, I think. Watch this ... the CEO of Diebold (based in Ohio, state upon which election hinged), contributor and campaigner for Bush, owner of the machines used in the state; to this, we add the track record of gaping security holes with the machines (easy hackability and crash-prone ... hell, they're run on Windows, for God's sakes), as well as the holy grail of no recorded votes, hence no paper trail. And there's the purging of 'spoiled' and 'provisional' ballots, disproportionately affecting the poor, black population that most likely would not have given Bush another four years in office. Well, at least the only place where Bush was simply crushed was his own backyard, right? And as I said right after it was all over, 'Shame on all of us.' Yeah. But that's over and done with: 'We got an inauguration to set up here! so move out the way before I shock you with this tazer ...'

What a year, indeed. Last time I had concluded 2003 to be 'a strange year,' but this one's been at least as equally fucked-up, that's for sure.

See you folks in 2005. Shit, 2005 ...

Going to see George Carlin in January, I think ...

Apparently the Battle of Falluja is not over: insurgents continue to launch attacks, and there is now word that US warplanes have begun bombing targets in the city. 2 GIs have thus far been killed. No further updates.

Reports are now surfacing that Ukrainian opposition candidate Viktor Yushchenko was poisoned by dioxin. Tests were conducted under the direction of Dr. Michael Zimpfer, who said that his team had found "concentrations of dioxin 1,000 times above normal levels," according to a bulletin from MSNBC. I think it merits note that dioxin is the chief ingredient of Agent Orange. Beforehand I had asked myself, 'What's wrong with that guy's face?' And now I know. So, I hope he gets better, but it's kind of hard to recover from Agent Orange ...

Finally, some goddamn unity here: after a nearly month-long stalemate in trying to pass the largest overhaul of national intelligence in a half-century, the Senate this afternoon voted overwhelmingly (89-2, with 9 abstaining) to endorse the bipartisan 9/11 Commission's recommendations toward establishing the post of a national intelligence director to oversee all of the nation's intelligence-gathering agencies. Yesterday, the House passed the bill by a margin of 336-75, and it is now on its way to Mr. Bush, who is expected to sign it. (Has he ever vetoed any substantial piece of legislation as our President? I can't recall.)

The objections made the leading members of the "near-rebellion" (as The New York Times worded it) in the House toward the bill were that the bill would impede communication between the Pentagon and the soldiers on the field, or something to that effect.

The Pentagon? Isn't this really about the CIA? You know, intelligence-gathering organizations? [Oh, well, there's the lesser known Defense Intelligence Agency.] But nonetheless, if some of the money that went toward the bombs that are helping bin Laden went instead toward overhauling the FBI's antiquated computers (I still cannot believe this) so that we could better do some real damage to bin Laden and his followers, it would be a great prospect.

Alas, as Richard Clarke (who referred to the 9/11 Commission recommendations in their final report as "toothless") has recognized, Bush has practically given almost every prospective terrorist in the world a sign-up for jihad. Where the legislation is for putting a quick and decisive end to this asinine and self-destructive (if not wholly counterintuitive) policy of lending a helping hand to our enemies, is something I would really like to know ...

Here's a fucking obvious bit of news: DEFENSE SECRETARY RUMSFELD TO - WHAT?! - STAY?! My God, how shocking ...

I'm really sorry, but news from Iraq: the American troop level has been raised to 150,000, largely through extending deployments for 10,000 soldiers already serving who had been told that they were going to go back home in the next few months. Of course, this roughly 9% increase in the occupation level of our forces is for securing the war-torn nation for the January election, but I see it as the subtle escalation of the war, billed under the usual pretexts of security. But what the hell do I know ...

In his first state visit to Canada in his tenure as President, Bush was greeted with enormous opposition from Canadians, who oppose him and his policies. "No, this is not Ukraine. This is Canada," declared Wolf Blitzer. This is hardly surprising, given that Ottawa did not contribute to the war effort in Iraq nor did the former Prime Minister support it. "I'd like to thank the Canadians who came out to wave ... with five fingers," said Bush. From the live televised footage from the rally, at times it turned relatively violent, with some intermittent pushing and shoving between the 'riot control' officials and the demonstrators. With signs reading 'Fuck Bush', 'Bush is the #1 Terrorist', 'Peace', etc., it is nothing but manifest that these are anti-American, terrorist sympathizers commited to bin Laden's jihad. No doubt about that. It lends absolute creedence to the popular T-shirt that reads INVADE CANADA. I hate those Canadians.*

The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) has declared "in confidential reports to the United States government" that the methods employed by it in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, are "'tantamount to torture,'" although this is categorically denied by the US military (for obvious reasons), according to a front-page story in today's New York Times.**

The prisoner torture in Abu Ghraib and in Guantanamo is truly un-American. This is not the image that ought to be shown to the world. When they read about all of these things and hear about them and see the pictures, they are not seeing America. They are seeing the net result of a chain of command that leads right up to the faction that has taken over our country. I am talking about you, Mr. Rumsfeld. And you, Mr. Wolfowitz. And you, Mr. Gonzales. You, Mr. Cheney. They are all (with the exception of Gonzales, the nominee for Attorney General, who was formerly the chief legal adviser) members of a faction, the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), founded in 1997. PNAC has become the chief de facto policymaker for our government. Why 'our'? For the reason that we are complicit: although a majority of the American people did not elect these people into office in 2000, a narrow majority in 2004 (50.87%) did. Therefore we hold responsibility for their actions, for they have assumed the role of representing us. I do not like to go onto this tangent, but I feel that it is necessary. But in the long run, this hypocritical 'exceptionalism' is going to come to really haunt us someday.

And, Tom Ridge has resigned as Homeland Security Secretary; six other cabinet posts (most notably John Ashcroft and Colin Powell) have already stepped down in this so-called exodus from the administration. [What I would like to know is whether any of the resignations were taken out of protest.]

* The prior four sentences were heavily sarcastic, if that is not already clear to everyone.

** Neil A. Lewis, "Red Cross Finds Detainee Abuse In Guantanamo," sec. A, p. 1.

I freely admit that I do not know much about the situation in Ukraine. It looks pretty bad. The State Department has declared the results, which have indicated the 'pro-Russia' candidate the winner of the highly contested race, illegitimate due to widespread allegations of fraud cited by international observers. The opposition candidate has called on hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians for a 'nationwide strike'. Other than this I know nothing.

And another thing: I am off on Thanksgiving break starting tomorrow morning. So until next time ...