Our Foreign Policy in the Middle East

OUR FOREIGN POLICY IN THE MIDDLE EAST

Mon. Feb. 23rd, 2015

A charge of heartlessness has been made against ISIS, the Islamic State.  The charge is well-founded.

Can a well-founded charge of heartlessness be made against American foreign policy in the Middle East?

The questions has to do with bombs dropped from airplanes, and explosives projected by drone missiles.

Of the various parts of American foreign policy, the part that interests me the most is the part of our foreign policy which lives in the hearts of our people.  The foreign policy which lives in the hearts of our people is that bombs dropped from airplanes are completely unrelated to bombs exploded by suicide bombers.

This has to do with playing from a position of strength.  The strong player is against sneakiness, but in favor of using weapons which the other side can't afford.  ("They can't afford it" includes "they don't have the technology for it.")  In the current state of warfare, bombs dropped from airplanes, and explosives thrown by drone missiles, are weapons which the other side can't afford.

Let's get back to heartlessness.  Are bombs dropped from airplanes and explosives thrown by drones heartless?

The standard answer is "You don't want to know" and its mutation "You can't handle the truth."

Some can, some can't.  It ties in with the strange picture of the monkey with his hands over his eyes, whose name is See No Evil.

See No Evil is a heck of a weird saying.  Does it really mean, I am more virtuous if I don't see evil?

I think what the saying "See no evil" is trying to mean is, "Don't feast your eyes on evil, if evil excites you."  Because "See no evil" had better not mean "If you see evil, turn your face away."  Turning your face away from evil was the behavior of the priest and Levite who came before the good Samaritan, and Jesus did not praise the priest and the Levite for their behavior.  The only actually virtuous meaning which "See no evil" can have is the meaning that if evil excites you, you need to avoid that excitement exactly the same way the straight alcoholic avoids taking an alcoholic drink.

Also -- and this is based on a story I read about the sinking of the Titanic -- if something horrible is happening, it's all right to put your hands over your child's eyes.

But putting your hands over your own eyes when you see evil is not the point of the saying "See no evil."

So to me, the question is not whether one person or another person can handle the truth.  The question is whether our foreign policy will be more productive if the American people are keenly aware of the evil consequences which a military strategy of bombing has for many innocent families of people native to the Middle East.

I believe the bombs we drop from airplanes and the explosives we detonate from drone missiles, in the Middle East, are heartless.  That would put the United States in the same category with ISIS.

What to do?  Repent of our foreign policy in the Middle East, and make a better one.  Repent, before the other side learns how to use the weapons we have been using against them.

There is another important angle to the sorrow we are storing up for ourselves.  Namely, the whore of Babylon.  She raises her ugly head in the Book of Revelation, chapter 17.  When we Christians read it, we need to remember, this is Saint John's euphemism.  John was a citizen or a subject of the Roman Empire -- the Roman Empire had both citizens and subjects -- and when he wrote about Babylon, he was really talking about Rome.  He was talking about the enemy of Jerusalem in his own generation.  He wasn't talking about the enemy of Jerusalem five hundred years earlier.  Indeed, the United States has changed its enemies and its allies many times in half of five hundred years.  John was talking about Rome.  Many people hear this, and they say "Ahh, that is SO unimportant."  It's not.  Your country has absolutely no right to persecute Babylon (Iraq) because of Saint John's euphemism.  Word. 

Furthermore, you need to think very carefully about Rome's role in the persecution of Jesus.  Rome, Europe, and the United States owe reparations to the Middle East, which is the cradle of religion, because we have mishandled our Arabic policy.  "No posthumous victories for Hitler" said Fackenheim -- alas!  The shambles of our policy towards Arab and Islamic nations is a monstrous victory for Hitler.  We fail to notice, that Hitler would have been just as happy persecuting Arabs as he was persecuting Jews.

As far as reparations are concerned, a suitable place to begin would be by dismantling the Arch of Titus.  But, if someone says "Rome" today, it might be a euphemism for the United States.

We have prophets in the United States, prophets of good quality.  I urge my fellow Americans to listen way more carefully to the prophets among us.  We need to get much better at diving down into the mud and getting to the bottom of each other's hearts.  It will make our country both stronger and better-hearted.

My Gun Sadness

MY GUN SADNESS

Sat. Feb. 21st, 2015

Government control over gun ownership by private citizens has been a huge bleeding-point in the culture wars in the USA.  Not so much in some other countries.  What is the disagreement in the USA?  I think it is a disagreement about the Most Disgusting Thing.  Liberals and conservatives have deep-seated angers about wrongful gun killings, but the things that disgust and anger them the most are not the same thing.  The type of wrongful gun killing which angers conservatives the most is when the law prevents a law-abiding man from equipping himself to shoot back at a criminal.  The type of wrongful gun killing that angers liberals the most is when a law-abiding man who is minding his own business is carelessly killed by a law enforcement official or a gun-toting conservative who imagined that they were acting in self-defense.  Killed by a man who believes in doing unto others before they do unto you.  Killed by a man who is held harmless by a society that believes that if you want to protect the real right of self-defense, you have to protect the right of a man who uses deadly force when he thinks he's threatened although he's not.

The disagreement is whether it is more repugnant to be killed when you don't have the right to bear arms, or more repugnant to be killed by someone who can't read the signs correctly in a split second when you're minding your own business.

I'm a liberal about this, in favor of gun control.  I am more afraid of trigger-happy people than I am of criminals.  My gun sadness is that I know this giant divide between liberals and conservatives will never be bridged in my lifetime; maybe not in ten generations.

But -- there is something here which seems worth doing to me -- something which my country hardly seems to be trying to do, from what I have observed.  That is, trying to express your position in words free of threats, words which the other side can understand.  If your country is deeply divided by a culture war, and an outside enemy attacks, would you rather be fighting side by side with someone whose deep-seated beliefs have been explained to you, or side by side with a man whose deep-seated beliefs have never been explained to you, whom you consider irrational and whom you hated until the minute before the war broke out?

My response is, our country would be stronger if we would make an effort to clear the muddy waters of the river between us in the culture wars.

I read and hear foreign news less often, and with less understanding, than American news.  But I've heard enough foreign news in my life to believe that every country in the world is fighting its own version of the culture wars.  I don't believe the culture wars are winnable or endable, but I do believe that if they were reported more rationally and less emotionally, we might live in a less nervous and more hopeful world.

Though they are disgusted by different things, both liberals and conservatives are human beings.

A Commentary on "anyone lived in a pretty how town" by e.e. cummings

A COMMENTARY ON "ANYONE LIVED IN A PRETTY HOW TOWN" BY E.E. CUMMINGS

Fri. Feb. 20th, 2015

I felt this poem with a lot of pleasure a long time before I had any clear-cut thoughts about what it meant.  But if you love something, eventually you'll glom some thoughts onto it.  Here's what I've come up with.

1. (with up so floating many bells down) -- i.e. The other people in the town didn't notice how beautiful the church bells were when they rang, but anyone noticed it.

2. they sowed their isn’t they reaped their same -- i.e. They sowed their cynicism, they reaped what they sowed.

3. children guessed . . . that noone loved him more by more -- Possible reference to Emily Dickinson's poem "I'm nobody -- Who are you?  Are you nobody too?"

4. when by now and tree by leaf -- "When?" answered by "Now!", "Tree?" answered by "Leaf!"

5. she -- Same person as noone in the previous stanza.

6. they said their nevers they slept their dream -- Cf. Hamlet's soliloquy, "to sleep, perchance to dream."

7. busy folk buried them side by side -- i.e. After a funeral, the grownups who are still alive have to go back to work.

8. earth by april . . . if by yes -- Noone and anyone did a free association thing, and "Earth?" was answered by "April!" and "If?" was answered by "Yes!"

9. reaped their sowing and went their came -- The big gloomathon.  "Man tills the earth, and dies, and lies beneath" -- my inaccurate memory of Tennyson's poem "Tithonus."

10. anyone -- i.e. You can be this person, if you would like to be this person.

If I think of something obvious, I'll let you know!

How I Lost Faith in My Grammar Checker

HOW I LOST FAITH IN MY GRAMMAR CHECKER

Fri. Feb. 20th, 2015

I was writing an E-mail, wrote they're, and my grammar checker put a wavy blue line underneath it.  "They're" disappeared from the E-mail before I sent it, and I no longer remember the exact context.  But I remember quite clearly that I was using it as a contraction of they are.  There are only two possibilities: either I used they're incorrectly, or my grammar checker thinks you can't use they're as a contraction of they are.  Let's pursue the second possibility briefly.  If my grammar checker thinks one shouldn't use "they're" as a contraction, then the ancient Romans would ask, Cui bono?  Who benefits?  I think I can answer that question.  Your boss!

Why do I say that?  Well, for starters, it doesn't apply to me.  If you work at a college or university like me, this is a non-issue.  But let's imagine a dialog between a supervisor and somone they supervise at almost any other type of workplace:

Supervisor:      I notive you wrote "they're", and the grammar checker put a blue wavy line underneath it.  You need to get rid of that "they're."

Supervisee:      But I used it as a contraction of they are!

Supervisor:      I don't care about that.  The grammar checker says it's wrong, so change it.

Supervisee leaves supervisor's office shaking their head.  "I thought I was right about they're, but I guess my supervisor knows better."

Ladies and gentlemen, that's not what's going on.  What's going on is, firstly, your supervisor doesn't want to get into an argument with you about grammar.  Secondly, if your supervisor does get into an argument with you about grammar, your supervisor wants a guaranteed victory.

I suppose the grammar checker used to be on your English teacher's side.  But it isn't anymore.  It's gone over to your boss's side.

I can bend and fold in many different ways, but in the abstract, as a user of English grammar and spelling, I want to be on my English teachers' side.  Whether one of them is dead or all of them are is completely immaterial.  My two points are:  Be true to your generation.  I'm a linguistically conservative member of my generation, and I want to write and talk like other linguistically conservative members of my generation.  Second, I want to honor my English teachers.  Most of us don't have very many ways we can honor our English teachers.  But continuing to write according to the rules your English teachers taught you is one way you can honor them, even after decades have gone by.

That's how I lost faith in my grammar checker.  We pursued the possibility that I used "they're" correctly, and I do believe I've dived down and touched the muddy bottom of my grammar checker's motives.  (Not "it's motives".)

P.S.  I toyed with the idea of blogging about the war between Russia and the Ukraine, but something bad would have happened to me if I had.