A little anniversary essay...enjoy?...
TWO EXAMPLES, WITH QUESTIONS
A Thoroughly Biased and Severely Rhetorical Analysis of Power-Structure Objective and Its Manifestations
Preface
This is one in an ongoing series of essays seeking to prove by example the hypothesis that there are those who exert their influence by allowing things to happen; not by starting things, but by not stopping things. This article points, and not gently, to two of those instances: to the CIA - M/I Complex free-for-all in the wake of WWII (the Then), and the endgame currently displayed by Big Oil (the Now) as resources dwindle, demand swells and opportunity balloons. It's not a new theory: Buckminster Fuller called those in the shadows the "Power Elite," Churchill was convinced there walk among us factions of a "High Cabal" and Anakin Skywalker seemed truly enamored with some entity only visible by its effect...I'm not quite there, but am willing to go as far as claiming there exists an element that, throughout human history, adopts an approach more akin to "So who's complaining?"
San Diego, California
July, 2008
(I) Then
Some considered - while others, including the author of the work, positively dismissed - Edward Lansdale as the role model for The Quiet American. What is beyond dispute is that Lansdale did what he did in Vietnam, and that his appointment by Allen Dulles as the first American officially involved in that covert piece of Indochinese history was one of assisting the French by heading up the newly-minted Saigon Military Mission. Noteworthy, according to at least one former Lansdale associate, because it wasn't in Saigon, it wasn't military and it didn't assist the French (successfully) - though, to be fair, Dien Bien Phu, a bellwether if ever there was one, fell just before Lansdale hit baggage claim in June of '54. Did Col. Lansdale think it a bit odd that a wily old man and former OSS asset from '45, one who assisted us against the Japanese, was now rallying enough Viets to beat down the French nine years later? Did he think the counterinsurgency tactics he honed so finely with Ramon Magsaysay in the Philippines of the early fifties would again fly with this Diem puppet-fella in the Vietnam of the late fifties? We can look to his memoirs, taking them at face value while considering the source, but are otherwise left to speculate what level of blinding human ignorance was required for the CIA to take 10,000 generations of rice and ancestor worship and say, in effect, "Here; this is called the 17th parallel. Line up and face south. This is your new home." And then give a resourceful and creative paramilitarist like Lansdale a blank check, one drawn from the "Greater Good" account.
Though it doesn't come up much (and in fact is generally ignored), over a million people were transferred from North to South Vietnam during this time in the mid-1950s. Told they were free to move, a mass exodus ensued, one helped along by US Navy ships and the CIA's Civilian Air Transport. Why would people that are tied so deeply to village, to homeland, so willingly abandoned everything to become refugees in their own country? Remember, this after fighting the French and persevering at great cost, and the Japanese before them, then French colonialism, then China, etc. So what could possibly scare the shit out them so much that each would join a million other mostly Catholic homeless in the unwelcoming South? We can assume the worst of Hanoi during that period, that these emigres-traitors met hideous fates whenever possible, but we can't leave it there. Just as CIA director Allen Dulles had privately green-lighted the go ahead with respect to the SMM, his brother, Secretary of State John Foster Dulles, was openly bellicose in his assessment: "We could carry on effective guerrilla operations...and we can raise hell." Not exactly vague, and one might be forgiven to interpret this to mean state-sponsored terrorism condoned at the highest levels of the US government. What does seem clear is that Lansdale operated with impunity during this campaign of political and psychological warfare, cloaked in the nobility of the time.
Another introspective situation arises from something Lansdale did back in the states. His co-authored "Training Under the Mutual Security Program" shows a blueprint, one no doubt presented and implemented the world over, and certainly instilled in every School of the Americas graduate before going back to respective Latin-infused countries to slaughter with both permission and encouragement. It unequivocally states that the military most do the will of the people - by becoming those people. And Lansdale is quite candid where he gets his inspiration: from Mao Zedong, from the Chairman's "the army are the fish, the people are the water - keep the fish in the water" outlook. So here we have, just a couple of years after the misery of the Great Leap Forward has been inaugurated, a fascinating recipe that, when followed, will save huge swathes of confused and unwashed peasantry from the evils of communism: just emulate one of its most powerful henchmen.
An interesting, and occasionally labeled successful, basis for creating sham governments ruled by manicured despots; and a clandestine policy decision that sinks considerably farther down the rabbit hole than that gross CIA misnomer of mere "Fun and Games."
Questions
1a) How is success measured? By not failing? What defines failure?
1b) When this approach is analyzed in "hotwash" context (whether it be a country, a time frame or the entire Cold War), can a beneficiary be named, and regardless of vantage point? If we reverse the causality > analysis model, starting instead with analyzing effect, do the causes change? Furthermore, if the stated effect starts to resemble the definition of objective at any point along the given timeline, thereby forcing additional causes under the column of perpetuation (if not initiation), what conclusions are now available? What predictions?
2) If we can lift the level of argument past interchangeable labels such as "freedom-fighter" or "terrorist," "revolutionary" or "counter insurgent," etc., and we are mature enough to accept that empires sustain themselves through conquest and tribute, can we hold an examination of Lansdale, and by extension all Lansdales, under the lens of objective scrutiny long enough to demonstrate conclusively that he/they either helped ameliorate the Cold War or helped perpetuate it? If we can present consensus and are in general agreement over which groups were not beneficiaries of the Cold War, can we present any groups that were?
3) If the CIA has ever got it right, are specifics available? Granted, this question may seem flip. It isn't.
(II) Now
A more current observation of the way things work still has the imprimatur of ideology all over it, and yet ideology is somehow not nearly as significant, at least not in the context of this example. Whereas a consensus existed (and still exists) that communism started somewhere "over there," forcing us to engage it lest we find ourselves surrounded by fallen, bloodthirsty dominoes, terrorism has always existed, and though the US can't take credit for being the first country to openly sanction Islamic fundamentalism, it has been, without question, one of the most successful. With more than a little irony, it could be argued that the death knell for Soviet communism was the Frankenstein by-product of the US / Saudi / Pakistani intelligence community: the loosely organized, well financed mujahideen of 1980s Afghanistan. The Cold War on Terror, as the commissioned flautist exterminates our rats, and then, sufficiently motivated, exterminates our children. (Whom did we think we were hiring?) But no time to digress; the topic at hand, the purpose of this essay, is the exposure of what lies beneath that veneer of ideology and propaganda.
As bad as the neo-conservatives are and always have been (is there any doubt left as to the true motivations of these spineless sheep, that "hegemony" translates into "Viagra" in neo-speak?), even they appeared to have been trumped in Iraq. And by names that aren't household. Simply put, the neo-cons wanted to privatize the Iraqi oil industry, which makes perfect sense, if you're a neo-con. However, that's not the ultimate in maximizing profit potential.
Every presented reason to go to Iraq could be countered in ten seconds by saying "but Pakistan actually had both al-Qaeda and WMDs." (Actually, that only took about four.) Obviously, it was always clear that a foothold was necessary in geostrategic terms for the next century or so. Pakistan, our supposed pal, comes equipped with both nukes and 170 million people. Iran, with 70 million adherents who generally feel the same about their simian cheerleader as we in this country feel about ours, provides the perfect understudy - one that can never get top billing, as it is most effective cloaked in 24/7 threat status - all as the plan to colonize what's left of Iraq's 30 million people and their petroleum reserves struts and frets its hour upon the stage. Too simple? Perhaps. But facts are facts: For one, we knew exactly where al-Qaeda was because we put them there. This explains both Afghanistan and, in a broad stroke of foreign policy that borders on treason, the hands-off policy regarding Pakistan, specifically Waziristan - though an argument could be made, successfully, that the greatest danger lie not with cave-dwelling zealots hoarding Soviet ammo but the Pakistani ISI, as their fingers are in everything, including 9/11. And for two, the Bush dynasty has willingly mortgaged everything up to and including its dipshit boy-king in order to appease the Saudis, so invading that country, even if through it terrorism financing flows like its crude, is off limits. Anathema, it would seem, for some. (Trick question: was James Baker Secretary of State, Secretary of the Treasury or did his law firm represent the entire country of Saudi Arabia?). That leaves us with the Wolfowitz Doctrine, known by its 21st century nickname, the Bush Doctrine.
Let's analyze:
These people care not a whit about the human cost, and have repeatedly exhibited their propensity to keep mucking things up (or fucking things up) with such horrendous decision making, thoroughly making the world more violent in the process (J. Paul Bremer, anyone?) So no news there. But what if the objective was and really is to keep that oil in the ground? Though some were no doubt willingly complicit in so many respects, it appears that the neo-cons were used as tools, just like they marshaled (or "tooled") the American public along with a steady diet of fear. Then they, too, were led down a path.
Who has stepped in and back out as needed? All evidence appears to point toward some Black Hand that will see to it that Iraqi oil is not privatized, yet is. That the Iraqi government and oil ministry are doing exactly what they are supposed to do in their house-negro status. Like the hammer dropping when that upstart Mossadegh had the nerve to desire nationalizing his country's carbon goodies, here is the inverse, sorta. Do not sell off the oil fields. Do not privatize; nationalize, and with stipulations decorating the periphery of a fledgling democacy's new constitution while irreversibly goring its innards. Houston, we don't have a problem...
Is it not surprising, then, that Texans (or "Beyond" Petroleum for that matter) look at a very different long throw? Nationalization stays, but with benefits. "Production Sharing Agreements" is the new silk for this emperor; and it's not that he is naked and nobody will speak, but only that a few seem to get it, and most of them are quite happy keeping mum. (A brief, brutal synopsis is attached below; see Appendix A: Headlines Cribbed from the Cooperative Research Web Site. Also, Greg Palast excels at pointing this out, and with wonderfully succinct phrasing such as "...conspiracy nuts are convinced there was a plan to confiscate Iraqi oil. They're wrong. There were two." see Appendix B: Links [iv].)
The attentive researcher may recall that Ahmed Chalabi, whose pre-war fables spun out of whole neo-con-sponsored cloth helped facilitate the destruction of an entire country, and who would not have been out of place videotaped with a cellphone atop those wooden rafters alongside Saddam Hussein, was instead both deputy prime minister and acting oil minister, simultaneously, twice, in 2005. Those heavily circulated stories about how Chalabi "conned the neo-cons," while convenient, are a disservice. A crook, parroting the curveball allegations of another crook (both Iraqi embezzlers), is simply not enough to override the entire American intelligence apparatus, let alone dupe the neo-conservative leviathan. Such things are, and were, allowed to happen. It helps to remember that if the outcome is already predetermined, the empirical data that gets you there may yet prove malleable. Or subject to evaporation. It hurts to remember that those whose qualifications regarding Iraq are impeccable, and whose toenail clippings contain more patriotism than the whole of the Bush Administration, are generally marginalized. (Two Examples - not the essay, but the sentence: Scott Ritter and Joe Wilson.)
Regime change by any means necessary.
Now, 50 years after Mossadegh became a communist (hey; Dubya once became a Christian), we have a situation where the most money to be made is by leaving that buried treasure in the ground. Interesting, isn't it, that the "National" Iranian Oil Company, which was the 1948 renaming of the Anglo-Persian Oil Company, a company still in the full stride of decades of humping the Iranian people (and who eventually changed its own moniker to British Petroleum) became, in the wake of the '53 coup, an oil pie chart that was 40% Brit, 40% Yankee, 12% Royal Dutch and the rest French? That is not a typo; the National Iranian Oil Company was British, American, Dutch and French. True, things were different then, seemingly unfettered and less complicated. We had Leave It To Beaver, they had SAVAK...a simpler time...
It is also interesting to note that those contracts inked in Tehran in 1953 were for 25 years. We'll never know what quelling the Iranian Revolution would have done (what, no WMD?), but one clear beneficiary presents itself in the wake of '79: oil prices shot through the Reaganomic roof. The reader is left to speculate how much oil revenue would have been lost had those hostages been snatched in '76 or, removing Carter from the equation altogether, '75. Would that have affected policy differently? Pure speculation, of course. However, the reader is also free to reflect on how, one year after Mossadegh got the boot, the United Fruit Company helped decide exactly when Guatemala would become a communist country, thereby ensuring that freedom-loving plantains stay liberated.
Back to the future: There are Iraqis who openly question why their country sits on so much oil, yet unlike other Arabs they cannot bathe in its wealth. Over here (except for the one percent that is actually shouldering the responsibility over there), Americans do not want and would not want to lose their quality of life, and have never shied away from impinging upon another's quality of life in order to further sustain their own. We are hardly a saintly bunch. However, when (not if) that quality of life actually diminishes for most, and with those few that are gaining immense riches in the process by being dishonest, disloyal and not in the least patriotic, then, like anything else unsustainable, a tipping point may very well occur. One no doubt being discussed, if not in boardrooms, at least on the back nine.
In closing, a cursory review of some simple figures may support this argument better than any long-winded accusations. The price of oil was around $22 a barrel when this war started. And, like that dim-witted bunny from the 70's cereal ads, therein lies the naked truth: Silly Neo-Cons; Oil is for Keeps! This is as fascinating as it is leveling: General Garner, fired by Rumsfeld for having the audacity to demand elections and not sell off the oil fields, is actually closer to the desired result than Rumsfeld, though history will reflect that General Garner was doing the right things for the right reasons. One wonders if the neo-cons didn't see the long throw since (they semi-rightly assumed) they were busy crafting it. Or perhaps that realization became painfully obvious later, the realization that they were water-carriers (or petroleum-shleppers) for a cabal that is hiding in plain sight.
Last year, when the price of oil had ballooned to a whopping $60 a barrel, that sent reserves value for Big Oil into the trillions. At least two of them (not trillion, singular). So when oil is 2 & 1/2 times that $60, at $150 a barrel, is it accurate to assume that those reserves are now worth $5 trillion? Divided over five years, that's about 20 billion a week in green/black gold, and lays bare what is really important when compared to the $2 or $3 billion spent each week on the Iraq war - even as obscene as that latter figure is given what little percentage that actually, financially, "supports the troops." And Big Oil isn't the one spending that $2 to $3 billion - they are just profiting from it.
An analogy comes to mind, one explaining the supposed efficacy in hiring prostitutes: "You're not paying them to stay, you're paying them to leave." The neo-cons just lacked vision, apparently, though they played a highly significant role. Some will no doubt stay behind, running the embassy or picking up the dry cleaning. But with respect to objective, they can leave.
Questions
1) If it can be shown that a government once for, by and of the people has eclipsed those directives during the first decade of the 21st century in favor of protecting corporate interests at a greater clip than it did during the whole of the 20th century; if, indeed, we are morphing from the American covert-ness of the 1970s to the British overt-ness 1770s, what drastic measures this side of a firing squad are required so that the republic doesn't descend into armed chaos and economic ruin? At which point are elected/appointed officials who openly fracture their country's military and economic stability dragged into the public square?
(Extra credit assignment: Compare and contrast two hyper-intelligent figures in foreign policy decision making, Robert McNamara and Donald Rumsfeld. Show whether arrogant negligence, or negligent arrogance, is either an asset or a liability in time of war. Cite clear examples and then define as strengths or weaknesses the ability to manipulate actionable intel, the incapacity to adjust in real time, etc. Finally, condense all argument into a one-paragraph conclusion explaining who was the bigger asshole.)
2) Can limitations be put on participants (businesses) in a free market economy when those participants flagrantly ignore ethical and equitable business practices, all while enjoying the benefits of the host country supporting them? Can we modify the Trading with the Enemy Act to include new definitions of "enemy?" At what point does openly-sanctioned war profiteering and similarly treasonous behavior make the aforementioned firing squad look attractive?
3) When Ngo Dinh Diem handed down edicts that sent the French and the Chinese packing, and the replacement of any established legal, economic or societal infrastructure became an immediate American problem, or when J. Paul Bremer unemployed both the Iraqi army and the entire Ba'ath party with the stroke of a pen, and the replacement of any established legal, economic or societal infrastructure became an immediate American problem, is it enough to file this away under "myopic stupidity?" In the context of this essay, no. With Diem, he didn't lift a chopstick without the CIA's permission. As for Bremer some fifty years later, those who wield influence over such puppets are far less clandestine. The question becomes one that arises repeatedly throughout history: Who benefits from such chaos? In Iraq, one beneficiary is clear. Indeed, when fascism left that country, its replacement wore a suit and stared at the ground. Academically, it may prove helpful to consider whether the oil companies would have held the same covert "lay low and wait" posture shadowing American policy if the politburo in Beijing had decided in the 1990s that Iraq needed to be annexed. Framed this way, that history can always repeat itself, particularly with respect to a successful business model, what future trends might we expect as resources dwindle?
Conclusion (with Mini-Examples)
i) As of this writing, the US Supreme Court has slashed the amount awarded to the victims of the Exxon Valdez spill. Whether even that fraction ($500,000) is eventually paid out, twenty years have passed and the native people, and their coastline, are still destroyed. Indeed, it would seem the natives' best play would have been, upon hearing that $500 billion in punitive damages had been awarded that day in 1994, to politely refuse, and ask the judge instead for $500,000 in Exxon stock. (Exxon Mobil's profits for 2007 alone amounted to some $40.6 billion, another new record.) The reality, however, is that corporate interests very much resemble those of the pathogens still infesting Prince William Sound. Simply due to the nature of its construction, a typical corporation's worldview roughly mirrors the sympathy found in a colony of insects.
ii) The Honourable East India Company, a business, for a time owned most of India, a country, and started a war with China, another country. It was a war fought championing the rights of drug dealers. After getting a "no-bid contract" (actually a "no-tax contract") that allowed the company to unload tea in the Colonies at a rate cheaper than what smugglers like Sam Adams and John Hancock were able to match, a wave of insurgent/patriotism literally spilled into Boston Harbor. Freedom-fighting contras conducting special ops dressed as Narrangasett Indians told big business exactly where to stick it.
We in this country take great pride in the American Revolution, and if for no other reason than that one aspect of having corporate interests and their government lackeys summarily fuck off, we should. Okay; for that whole freedom/liberty thing also.
That system needed a new system.
This system needs a new system.
-----------
Appendix A: Headlines Cribbed from the Cooperative Research Web Site
These headlines are over a year old, but within these few paragraphs, and alongside the fact that this has all but been ignored by the American media, they provide an excellent snapshot of how the future of Iraq will truly be shaped.
February 15, 2007: Draft Iraqi Oil Law Undergoes Additional Changes Changes are again made to the draft of the proposed Iraqi oil law. [ASIA TIMES, 2/28/2007]
According to this draft: Foreign corporations would have access to nearly every sector of Iraq's oil and natural gas industry, including service contracts on existing fields that are already being managed and operated by the Iraqi National Oil Company (INOC). For fields that have been discovered, but which are not currently being developed, the law would require INOC to be a partner in developing these fields. But the new oil law does not require participation of the INOC or any private Iraqi companies in contracts for fields that have not yet been discovered. In such cases, the new law would permit foreign companies to have full access. [IRAQI COUNCIL OF MINISTERS, 2/2007; INTER PRESS SERVICE, 2/28/2007; ASIA TIMES, 2/28/2007]
Companies contracted to develop oil fields would be given exclusive control of fields for up to 35 years, and would be guaranteed profits for 25 years. Foreign companies would not be required to partner with an Iraqi company or reinvest any of its profits in the Iraqi economy. Nor would they have to employ or train Iraqi workers, or engage in any other effort to transfer technology and skills to the Iraqis. [IRAQI COUNCIL OF MINISTERS, 2/2007; ASIA TIMES, 2/28/2007]
An Iraqi Federal Oil and Gas Council would be established and given the ultimate decision-making authority in determining what kinds of contracts could be used to develop Iraq's oil and what would be done with the existing exploration and production contracts already signed with French, Chinese, Russian, and other foreign companies. The law states that council members would include, among others, "executive managers from important related petroleum companies." As an article in the Asian Times notes, "[I]t is possible that foreign oil-company executives could sit on the council. It would be unprecedented for a sovereign country to have, for instance, an executive of ExxonMobil on the board of its key oil-and-gas decision-making body." There is no language in the law that would prevent foreign corporate executives sitting on the council from making decisions about their own contracts. And there is no requirement that a quorum be present when making decisions. The Asian Times article notes, "Thus, if only five members of the Federal Oil and Gas Council met—one from ExxonMobil, Shell, ChevronTexaco and two Iraqis—the foreign company representatives would apparently be permitted to approve contacts for themselves." The new law does not specify what kind of oil agreements could be signed between Iraq and private firms to develop Iraq's oil. Rather it leaves this question to the council, which would be permitted to approve and rewrite contracts using whatever type is agreed upon by a "two-thirds majority of the members in attendance." Previous drafts o f the law had specifically mentioned production sharing agreements (PSAs), a controversial type of contract that is favored by the oil companies. [ASIA TIMES, 2/28/2007] That model, favored by the US and by oil companies, was opposed by many Iraqis, including Iraqi oil professionals, engineers, and technicians in the unions. The Iraqis prefer technical service contracts, like the ones used in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Iran. Under such contracts foreign companies would be allowed to participate in the development of oil fields, but only for a limited time. [DEMOCRACY NOW!, 2/20/2007] The companies would be paid to build a refinery, lay a pipeline, or offer consultancy services, but then would leave afterwards. This type of arrangement would help transfer technical expertise and skills to Iraqis. "It is a much more equitable relationship because the control of production, development of oil will stay with the Iraqi state," notes Ewa Jasiewicz, a researcher at PLATFORM, a British human rights and environmental group that monitors the oil industry. She notes that no other country in the Middle East that is a large oil producer would ever sign a PSA because it's "a form of privatization and… it's not in their interests." Critics also note that the signing of PSA agreements with US oil companies would add fuel to the unrest in Iraq and that the US would attempt to legitimize its continuing presence in Iraq with assertions about the need to safeguard US business interests. [INTER PRESS SERVICE, 2/28/2007]
Iraq's national government would not have control over production levels. Rather, the contractee developing a field—e.g., the INOC, or a foreign or domestic company—would be able to decide how much oil to produce. However, the document does say: "In the event that, for national policy considerations, there is a need to introduce limitations on the national level of petroleum production, such limitations shall be applied in a fair and equitable manner and on a pro rata basis for each contract area on the basis of approved field-development plans." But it does not specify who has the authority to introduce such nation-wide limitations or how production levels might be lowered in a "fair and equitable manner." The language appears to signify that Iraq would no longer work with OPEC or other similar organizations. [IRAQI COUNCIL OF MINISTERS, 2/2007; ASIA TIMES, 2/28/2007]
Oil revenues would be distributed to all of Iraq's 18 provinces according to their population sizes. Regional administrations, not Iraq's central government, would have the authority to negotiate contracts with foreign oil companies, monitor contracts, and deal with small disputes. But the ultimate authority would lie with the Federal Oil and Gas Council which would be able to veto decisions made by regional authorities. Critics say this arrangement almost encourages the split of Iraq into three different regions or even three different states. According to Raed Jarrar, Iraq Project Director for Global Exchange, a situation like this would mean that "Iraqis in different provinces will start signing contracts directly with foreign companies and competing between themselves, among themselves, among different Iraqi provinces, to get the oil companies to go… there without any centralized way in controlling this and thinking of the Iraqi interest and protecting Iraq as a country." [IRAQI COUNCIL OF MINISTERS, 2/2007; INTER PRESS SERVICE, 2/28/2007]
February 26, 2007: Iraq Cabinet Approves New Oil Law; Iraq Parliament Has Not Seen It, While Western Governments and Foreign Oil Companies Have
Iraq's cabinet approves the February 15 draft of the proposed Iraqi oil law (see February 15, 2007). The law has not yet been seen by Iraq's parliament. The only parties that have reviewed the law, aside from its authors, have been nine international oil companies, the British and US governments, and the International Monetary Fund. The cabinet expects that the law will be quickly passed by Iraq's parliament and implemented by the end of May. [ASSOCIATED PRESS, 2/26/2007; INTER PRESS SERVICE, 2/28/2007]
Appendix B: Links
i) A link to the official draft of the Oil and Gas Law of the Iraq Republic:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=4868
(Not quite the Valachi Papers, but pretty close.)
ii) Here, when one has an afternoon to kill, are the actual Valachi Papers, plus a hefty dose of slanted perspective:
http://www.carbonweb.org/showitem.asp?article=55&parent=4&link=Y&gp=3
http://www.iraqoillaw.com/
iii) Video of a briefing by Hassan Juma'a Awad, President of the Iraqi Federation of Oil Unions, displaying his formidable task of facing down not only the likes of KBR and Shell, but his own country's corrupt politicians and the re-wording of the ominous phrase "Production Sharing Agreements." Specifically noteworthy: the mention of the, quote, "loophole in the Iraqi Constitution" that gives Iraq's 18 provinces the freedom to decide who gets to do what and where, bypassing any national decision making in Baghdad. This, in a nutshell, is a tailor made example of how the tentacles of semi-invisible power structures actually wield their influence; in this case, the framing is that of the Iraqi National Oil Company - whose name strongly suggests an Iraqi company charged with focusing on its nation's oil - a company that Exxon, Shell, BP and the rest all but pat on the head like the dim stepchild they've engineered it to be. Meanwhile, the Iraqi Federal Oil and Gas Council is free to be staffed by global industry experts, and can approve or veto decisions made at the regional level, the regional level that is itself dealing directly with the oil consortiums.
As of this writing, oil costs roughly $1.50 per barrel to extract from Iraqi soil, and sells for roughly $150.00 a barrel on the world market. The Honourable East India Company would be proud.
http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/jumaa030807.html
iv) Finally, if one can only spare five minutes and considers pictures helpful, there is always the unstoppable Greg Palast (as excellent as it is brief, the following should be printed, laminated and used as place mats in every American household):
http://www.gregpalast.com/wp-content/uploads/smiraqtimeline.jpg
Copyright 2007-2008 Jexican Publishing. All Rights Reserved.
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Thursday, July 3, 2008
Smoke Another One
Re A Template for Taming Iran by Richard Brookhiser
February 16, 2007
Sir;
Reading Richard Brookhiser's simple, eloquent and concise suggestion on how we might best engage Iran by reviewing our history with the Barbary States ("A Template for Taming Iran," February 8, 2007), I was struck by how clear the facts were presented, how easy the concepts were to grasp, etc.
A second pass, however, revealed something rather stark, and initially invisible due to my own myopia: It makes absolutely no practical sense. It is no longer the world of 1979, let alone 1789. Aside from the fact that a few (uniquely American) developments in the interim have had considerable affect upon our view of global affairs (telephones, aircraft, seeing who gets cut from American Idol this week at all costs), the tenor of the writing is pretty slanted. And, I feel, to our collective detriment. Reread the piece and see if you make it as far as the second to last paragraph - the one containing the words "Jefferson" "slaves" "greed" and "religion" all bunched together - before giving pause to the fact that we are marinated in our own superiority to the point of blindness. “Since zeal could modified by greed, their true religion was the shakedown”. Indeed, Mr Brookhiser, indeed...
The opening paragraph, after referencing the past 27 years of Iranian relations, then binds all Islam together with the "...last time we tried" closing sentence, which leapfrogs back through time and space to (North African and Arabian) Islamic brigands. Of the Mediterranean Sea, not Persian Gulf. Two centuries ago.
Is this an accurate template for victory? Perhaps a better question: What percentage of a strategy session in Tehran is spent mulling over Arabian pirates and their dealings with the Great Satan in the early 1800's? Is it reasonable to consider that present Iranian intelligence, 200 years and a couple thousand miles (in both distance and culture) removed from the Barbary States will probably not adopt a similar "template" when assessing our next move? How long would the guy keep his job who suggests some of their brighter bulbs now be pulled away from enriched uranium defense to study the tactical successes of Stephen Decatur? (Or keep his head for that matter.)
The word "taming" was no accident either - it is a very well chosen word, and fitting given the cattle-rustling mythology that greatly made this country. The implication is clear: "They" (the modern-day brigands) are wild and must be taught to heel, and this couldn't be more apparent than with the current Iranian president. While his indignant posture and incendiary rhetoric not only threaten regional stability, he clearly does not reflect the wishes of the majority of his own people. To think someone like that could get elected in this day and age...
Now, as much as ever, it is important to be a student of history. Maintaining some perspective will only help in resolute decision making that benefits future generations of Americans. And while it may be tempting to allow xenophobic tendencies to crop up from time to time, let's not forget from whence we came. You know: the country that eradicated huge swathes of Native American populations, considered Black folks property and occasionally checked our own females for buoyancy. In the name of greed and excused by religion. Let's keep that in mind while we continue to move forward.
PT
Seattle, Washington
Copyright 2007 Jexican Publishing. All Rights Reserved.
February 16, 2007
Sir;
Reading Richard Brookhiser's simple, eloquent and concise suggestion on how we might best engage Iran by reviewing our history with the Barbary States ("A Template for Taming Iran," February 8, 2007), I was struck by how clear the facts were presented, how easy the concepts were to grasp, etc.
A second pass, however, revealed something rather stark, and initially invisible due to my own myopia: It makes absolutely no practical sense. It is no longer the world of 1979, let alone 1789. Aside from the fact that a few (uniquely American) developments in the interim have had considerable affect upon our view of global affairs (telephones, aircraft, seeing who gets cut from American Idol this week at all costs), the tenor of the writing is pretty slanted. And, I feel, to our collective detriment. Reread the piece and see if you make it as far as the second to last paragraph - the one containing the words "Jefferson" "slaves" "greed" and "religion" all bunched together - before giving pause to the fact that we are marinated in our own superiority to the point of blindness. “Since zeal could modified by greed, their true religion was the shakedown”. Indeed, Mr Brookhiser, indeed...
The opening paragraph, after referencing the past 27 years of Iranian relations, then binds all Islam together with the "...last time we tried" closing sentence, which leapfrogs back through time and space to (North African and Arabian) Islamic brigands. Of the Mediterranean Sea, not Persian Gulf. Two centuries ago.
Is this an accurate template for victory? Perhaps a better question: What percentage of a strategy session in Tehran is spent mulling over Arabian pirates and their dealings with the Great Satan in the early 1800's? Is it reasonable to consider that present Iranian intelligence, 200 years and a couple thousand miles (in both distance and culture) removed from the Barbary States will probably not adopt a similar "template" when assessing our next move? How long would the guy keep his job who suggests some of their brighter bulbs now be pulled away from enriched uranium defense to study the tactical successes of Stephen Decatur? (Or keep his head for that matter.)
The word "taming" was no accident either - it is a very well chosen word, and fitting given the cattle-rustling mythology that greatly made this country. The implication is clear: "They" (the modern-day brigands) are wild and must be taught to heel, and this couldn't be more apparent than with the current Iranian president. While his indignant posture and incendiary rhetoric not only threaten regional stability, he clearly does not reflect the wishes of the majority of his own people. To think someone like that could get elected in this day and age...
Now, as much as ever, it is important to be a student of history. Maintaining some perspective will only help in resolute decision making that benefits future generations of Americans. And while it may be tempting to allow xenophobic tendencies to crop up from time to time, let's not forget from whence we came. You know: the country that eradicated huge swathes of Native American populations, considered Black folks property and occasionally checked our own females for buoyancy. In the name of greed and excused by religion. Let's keep that in mind while we continue to move forward.
PT
Seattle, Washington
Copyright 2007 Jexican Publishing. All Rights Reserved.
Tuesday, July 1, 2008
PetSmart Stupidity
What follows below is fairly self-explanatory. Ignored in February, I juggled a couple of letters around one night in May until hitting upon the CEO's correct email address. This warranted the flaccid response reprinted at the bottom by corporate busboy Richardson and, while I appreciate his personal response, only re-solidifies an already solid decision not to shop at PetSmart.
Sent: Monday, May 26, 2008 9:55 PM
To: Phil Francis
Cc: Scott Crozier
Subject: Arizona Revised Statutes 13-2910
Mr Francis, this letter was first sent over three months ago. A response would be appreciated, and please do not direct me to the "Updated February 11, 2008" posting on your Web site - that reeks of cowardice and lawyer speak. Surely your company can do better than that!
February 14, 2008
PetSmart, Inc.
19601 North 27th Avenue
Phoenix, AZ 85027
RE: Arizona Revised Statutes 13-2910
Dear PetSmart Customer Care:
I receive the NYTimes in my email inbox every morning. At the top of the February 8 edition was a video waiting to be clicked, paid for by PETA. As everyone in your company is well aware by now, the imagery shot of animals at Rainbow World Exotics, a supplier of PetSmart, was ghastly and anything but humane. Not wanting to simply take PETA's word for it, I searched your Web site for more information. After reviewing the company's timeline, from its modest beginnings to its current status of almost 1000 stores and billions in annual revenue, the millions raised for charitable work, the in-store vets and adoptions, etc., I was looking forward to reading the PetSmart - The Facts page named "PETA's Campaign Against Rainbow Exotics" to fill me in on, simply, the facts.
As someone who has made countless trips to PetSmart, buying supplies for dogs, cats and fish, both as a young adult and as a grown up with little pet lovers (and future PetSmart shoppers) in tow, I would appreciate answers to the following questions:
You claim to have "...launched a full-scale investigation, including dispatching a team of PetSmart veterinarians and other technical experts to Rainbow’s facility unannounced. We also have carefully reviewed PETA’s video and allegations." Well, for one, where is your video? Surely the numbers your company pulls in would dictate that at least one marketing whiz works there, and would have realized the best way to make this go away would be with video to counter the PETA video. Whether there was something improper going on at Rainbow or not, videotaping your unannounced arrival to the facility would only bolster your credibility. Seeing is believing.
Regarding Bullet Point One:
"While we believe there are always opportunities for improvement in how pets are bred and raised by our pet suppliers, including Rainbow, we found no indication of animal cruelty or mistreatment at Rainbow’s facilities. We do not believe that PETA’s video accurately represents the entire situation."
Which situation does PETA's video represent, then, since you claim to have found zero indication of cruelty? The conditions of the animals in PETA's video can only be described as "cruel."
Regarding Bullet Point Two:
"Rainbow’s employees care about the safety and well-being of the animals they raise."
Which employees, exactly? That statement refuses to address the employees, and conditions, shown in the video, and without factual support is an empty claim.
Regarding Bullet Point Three:
"The PETA representative who recorded the images reportedly failed to raise any concerns of abuse or mistreatment to managers of the facility during her two-month employment."
That's what PETA does, and everyone knows as much whether or not they agree with PETA's tactics. What is motivating you to attempt to redirect so obviously? Does the animosity between PetSmart and PETA somehow trump the welfare of the animals shown?
Regarding Bullet Point Four:
"PETA’s troubling video segment of a Rainbow staff member neutering a rabbit showed some practices that were not in line with generally accepted procedures and that certainly did not meet our standards. We have revisited with Rainbow our expectations for staff training, sterilization and post-operative care. Rainbow has assured us it is committed to meeting these standards and we are holding them to this commitment."
YES, NEUTERING A RABBIT WITH A DULL KNIFE AND BLEACH HANDIWIPES PROBABLY DID NOT MEET YOUR STANDARDS. THAT YOU HAD TO "REVISIT" THESE EXPECTATIONS, AND THAT RAINBOW HAS "ASSURED US," ETC. - INSTEAD OF PROFESSING INNOCENCE, CLAIMING IT WAS A ROGUE EMPLOYEE OR DEMANDING A RETRACTION FROM PETA BECAUSE IT WAS A STAGED SET-UP - SPEAKS VOLUMES ABOUT WHAT YOUR COMPANY IS WILLING TO EXCUSE. HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN THIS?
Regarding Bullet Point Five:
"During the period in which the pictures were taken, Rainbow had an attending veterinarian. Since then, and weeks before PETA made its allegations known, Rainbow hired a licensed veterinarian full-time."
This seems indicative of what you must assume to be the intellectual aptitude of your target audience. An "attending" veterinarian is still a veterinarian. Are you claiming that the two months, the period in which the pictures were taken, was not full time; and, that there was a veterinarian, but not a licensed one (?), conducting barbaric acts on animals; and, that those running Rainbow were completely clueless about the goings-on? How is this somehow excusable by a publicly-traded company that presents itself as committed to animal welfare?
The "facts" page continues, and toward the end a "...as with all of our pet suppliers, we will continue to hold them to high standards and expectations and work closely with them to ensure these standards are met" is thrown in for good measure. How can you continue to hold them to standards if you've not yet started? Worse, one of your warehouse and distribution centers, a 230,000 square foot facility, is in Ennis, TX, and not all that distant from Rainbow's Hamilton, TX, location. It would seem that oversight was entirely possible, just not deemed necessary.
What I found on your Web site only strengthened PETA's claims against you, and cemented my decision to not only stop shopping at PetSmart, but to suggest to other pet owners they do their own evaluation before setting foot in one of your stores again. Aside from my personal and professional contacts, I will also strongly suggest to my son, now a teenager and life-long animal lover, that he utilize his command of social networking sites to bring about more public awareness of your position on this matter. I suspect the PETA video is replicating across the Internet exponentially as I write this.
Your claim of finding "no indication of animal cruelty or mistreatment at Rainbow’s facilities" on your visit is certainly not a denial that the cruelty exhibited in the video actually happened. This is reinforced by your other claim that it was an "attending veterinarian" (did he attend college long enough to be called a veterinarian or not?) on duty during the time when the video was shot. Simply put, this means Rainbow's management is at best negligent, and their credibility zero. The conduct of their videotaped employees, "attending" or otherwise, was intentional, and therefore criminal under Texas law.
As it is PetSmart's choice to associate with such barbaric practices in the breeding and trafficking of pets, it is my choice to take my business elsewhere. And misdirection posing as poor word choice does nothing to help your case, with explanations posted such as "The loss of any life is upsetting, and while images of sick pets and death are always difficult to accept, sadly it’s inevitable in nature." Exactly where "in nature" do you find animals caging and intentionally neglecting themselves en masse for our enjoyment? Or did you mean, "inevitable in human nature?"
In closing, I cannot help but wonder how much, if at all, Arizona Revised Statutes 13-2910 - which could not be more clear in its definition of what constitutes cruel mistreatment of animals - would apply toward your Phoenix-based operation, if maintaining a position of "plausible deniability" is your company's preferred strategy in handling this sensitive matter. Whatever the rationale, that PetSmart has opted to continue using Rainbow World Exotics as a supplier is distressing. To the animals. It should also be noted, however, that without a policy change more focused on long-term sustainability, the possible repercussions in such an info-saturated and video-dominant age that will eventually affect both PetSmart shareholders and associates alike. Surely that's worth at least one more boardroom discussion.
Sincerely,
PT
Seattle. Washington
From: Bruce Richardson
Sent: Wed, 28 May 2008 5:20 pm
Subject: FW: Arizona Revised Statutes 13-2910
Dear PT:
Thank you for your email concerning the PETA allegations.
We do not find it a constructive exercise to enter into point-counterpoint debates on PETA allegations. PETA has conducted similar “investigations” and made similar charges about our stores in the past. None of those claims were substantiated by local animal control and law enforcement agencies, which subsequently conducted their own investigations at PETA’s request and with our full support and cooperation, or by our own internal investigations. We believe its corporate campaign against PetSmart is without factual support.
Our high regard for and focus on the care for pets is on exhibit every day for anyone to see in any of our stores in the U.S. or Canada. We have a number of policies and procedures in place to ensure our small pets are raised and cared for properly and humanely. We believe it makes no sense to give pets great care in the stores and neglect the way they’re bred, cared for and transported before reaching our stores.
We take any claims of mistreatment seriously and thoroughly investigate them, whether they concern our stores or our vendors, and we take corrective steps as appropriate. We believe the information posted on our website adequately addresses the issues we identified in our own investigation of Rainbow. We have since made other unscheduled visits to this vendor and believe the areas where we felt improvement was warranted have been addressed.
We are confident in this vendor’s ability to breed and raise healthy pets and will continue to work with it and all of our vendors to ensure the pets throughout our supply chain are bred, cared for and transported in an ethical and humane way. Again, I encourage you to visit a PetSmart store and see for yourself if the health and safety of our pets meets your expectation.
Sincerely,
Bruce Richardson
Bruce K. Richardson
Director, External Communications
Corporate Communications
Office: 623.587.2662
Copyright 2007-2008 Jexican Publishing. All Rights Reserved
Sent: Monday, May 26, 2008 9:55 PM
To: Phil Francis
Cc: Scott Crozier
Subject: Arizona Revised Statutes 13-2910
Mr Francis, this letter was first sent over three months ago. A response would be appreciated, and please do not direct me to the "Updated February 11, 2008" posting on your Web site - that reeks of cowardice and lawyer speak. Surely your company can do better than that!
February 14, 2008
PetSmart, Inc.
19601 North 27th Avenue
Phoenix, AZ 85027
RE: Arizona Revised Statutes 13-2910
Dear PetSmart Customer Care:
I receive the NYTimes in my email inbox every morning. At the top of the February 8 edition was a video waiting to be clicked, paid for by PETA. As everyone in your company is well aware by now, the imagery shot of animals at Rainbow World Exotics, a supplier of PetSmart, was ghastly and anything but humane. Not wanting to simply take PETA's word for it, I searched your Web site for more information. After reviewing the company's timeline, from its modest beginnings to its current status of almost 1000 stores and billions in annual revenue, the millions raised for charitable work, the in-store vets and adoptions, etc., I was looking forward to reading the PetSmart - The Facts page named "PETA's Campaign Against Rainbow Exotics" to fill me in on, simply, the facts.
As someone who has made countless trips to PetSmart, buying supplies for dogs, cats and fish, both as a young adult and as a grown up with little pet lovers (and future PetSmart shoppers) in tow, I would appreciate answers to the following questions:
You claim to have "...launched a full-scale investigation, including dispatching a team of PetSmart veterinarians and other technical experts to Rainbow’s facility unannounced. We also have carefully reviewed PETA’s video and allegations." Well, for one, where is your video? Surely the numbers your company pulls in would dictate that at least one marketing whiz works there, and would have realized the best way to make this go away would be with video to counter the PETA video. Whether there was something improper going on at Rainbow or not, videotaping your unannounced arrival to the facility would only bolster your credibility. Seeing is believing.
Regarding Bullet Point One:
"While we believe there are always opportunities for improvement in how pets are bred and raised by our pet suppliers, including Rainbow, we found no indication of animal cruelty or mistreatment at Rainbow’s facilities. We do not believe that PETA’s video accurately represents the entire situation."
Which situation does PETA's video represent, then, since you claim to have found zero indication of cruelty? The conditions of the animals in PETA's video can only be described as "cruel."
Regarding Bullet Point Two:
"Rainbow’s employees care about the safety and well-being of the animals they raise."
Which employees, exactly? That statement refuses to address the employees, and conditions, shown in the video, and without factual support is an empty claim.
Regarding Bullet Point Three:
"The PETA representative who recorded the images reportedly failed to raise any concerns of abuse or mistreatment to managers of the facility during her two-month employment."
That's what PETA does, and everyone knows as much whether or not they agree with PETA's tactics. What is motivating you to attempt to redirect so obviously? Does the animosity between PetSmart and PETA somehow trump the welfare of the animals shown?
Regarding Bullet Point Four:
"PETA’s troubling video segment of a Rainbow staff member neutering a rabbit showed some practices that were not in line with generally accepted procedures and that certainly did not meet our standards. We have revisited with Rainbow our expectations for staff training, sterilization and post-operative care. Rainbow has assured us it is committed to meeting these standards and we are holding them to this commitment."
YES, NEUTERING A RABBIT WITH A DULL KNIFE AND BLEACH HANDIWIPES PROBABLY DID NOT MEET YOUR STANDARDS. THAT YOU HAD TO "REVISIT" THESE EXPECTATIONS, AND THAT RAINBOW HAS "ASSURED US," ETC. - INSTEAD OF PROFESSING INNOCENCE, CLAIMING IT WAS A ROGUE EMPLOYEE OR DEMANDING A RETRACTION FROM PETA BECAUSE IT WAS A STAGED SET-UP - SPEAKS VOLUMES ABOUT WHAT YOUR COMPANY IS WILLING TO EXCUSE. HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN THIS?
Regarding Bullet Point Five:
"During the period in which the pictures were taken, Rainbow had an attending veterinarian. Since then, and weeks before PETA made its allegations known, Rainbow hired a licensed veterinarian full-time."
This seems indicative of what you must assume to be the intellectual aptitude of your target audience. An "attending" veterinarian is still a veterinarian. Are you claiming that the two months, the period in which the pictures were taken, was not full time; and, that there was a veterinarian, but not a licensed one (?), conducting barbaric acts on animals; and, that those running Rainbow were completely clueless about the goings-on? How is this somehow excusable by a publicly-traded company that presents itself as committed to animal welfare?
The "facts" page continues, and toward the end a "...as with all of our pet suppliers, we will continue to hold them to high standards and expectations and work closely with them to ensure these standards are met" is thrown in for good measure. How can you continue to hold them to standards if you've not yet started? Worse, one of your warehouse and distribution centers, a 230,000 square foot facility, is in Ennis, TX, and not all that distant from Rainbow's Hamilton, TX, location. It would seem that oversight was entirely possible, just not deemed necessary.
What I found on your Web site only strengthened PETA's claims against you, and cemented my decision to not only stop shopping at PetSmart, but to suggest to other pet owners they do their own evaluation before setting foot in one of your stores again. Aside from my personal and professional contacts, I will also strongly suggest to my son, now a teenager and life-long animal lover, that he utilize his command of social networking sites to bring about more public awareness of your position on this matter. I suspect the PETA video is replicating across the Internet exponentially as I write this.
Your claim of finding "no indication of animal cruelty or mistreatment at Rainbow’s facilities" on your visit is certainly not a denial that the cruelty exhibited in the video actually happened. This is reinforced by your other claim that it was an "attending veterinarian" (did he attend college long enough to be called a veterinarian or not?) on duty during the time when the video was shot. Simply put, this means Rainbow's management is at best negligent, and their credibility zero. The conduct of their videotaped employees, "attending" or otherwise, was intentional, and therefore criminal under Texas law.
As it is PetSmart's choice to associate with such barbaric practices in the breeding and trafficking of pets, it is my choice to take my business elsewhere. And misdirection posing as poor word choice does nothing to help your case, with explanations posted such as "The loss of any life is upsetting, and while images of sick pets and death are always difficult to accept, sadly it’s inevitable in nature." Exactly where "in nature" do you find animals caging and intentionally neglecting themselves en masse for our enjoyment? Or did you mean, "inevitable in human nature?"
In closing, I cannot help but wonder how much, if at all, Arizona Revised Statutes 13-2910 - which could not be more clear in its definition of what constitutes cruel mistreatment of animals - would apply toward your Phoenix-based operation, if maintaining a position of "plausible deniability" is your company's preferred strategy in handling this sensitive matter. Whatever the rationale, that PetSmart has opted to continue using Rainbow World Exotics as a supplier is distressing. To the animals. It should also be noted, however, that without a policy change more focused on long-term sustainability, the possible repercussions in such an info-saturated and video-dominant age that will eventually affect both PetSmart shareholders and associates alike. Surely that's worth at least one more boardroom discussion.
Sincerely,
PT
Seattle. Washington
From: Bruce Richardson
Sent: Wed, 28 May 2008 5:20 pm
Subject: FW: Arizona Revised Statutes 13-2910
Dear PT:
Thank you for your email concerning the PETA allegations.
We do not find it a constructive exercise to enter into point-counterpoint debates on PETA allegations. PETA has conducted similar “investigations” and made similar charges about our stores in the past. None of those claims were substantiated by local animal control and law enforcement agencies, which subsequently conducted their own investigations at PETA’s request and with our full support and cooperation, or by our own internal investigations. We believe its corporate campaign against PetSmart is without factual support.
Our high regard for and focus on the care for pets is on exhibit every day for anyone to see in any of our stores in the U.S. or Canada. We have a number of policies and procedures in place to ensure our small pets are raised and cared for properly and humanely. We believe it makes no sense to give pets great care in the stores and neglect the way they’re bred, cared for and transported before reaching our stores.
We take any claims of mistreatment seriously and thoroughly investigate them, whether they concern our stores or our vendors, and we take corrective steps as appropriate. We believe the information posted on our website adequately addresses the issues we identified in our own investigation of Rainbow. We have since made other unscheduled visits to this vendor and believe the areas where we felt improvement was warranted have been addressed.
We are confident in this vendor’s ability to breed and raise healthy pets and will continue to work with it and all of our vendors to ensure the pets throughout our supply chain are bred, cared for and transported in an ethical and humane way. Again, I encourage you to visit a PetSmart store and see for yourself if the health and safety of our pets meets your expectation.
Sincerely,
Bruce Richardson
Bruce K. Richardson
Director, External Communications
Corporate Communications
Office: 623.587.2662
Copyright 2007-2008 Jexican Publishing. All Rights Reserved
Monday, May 26, 2008
Change the Channel Already
Yet another missive excluded from "All The News That's Fit To Print." Why I have no idea...
CHANGE THE CHANNEL ALREADY
November 19, 2007
Dear Mr Friedman;
I feel that your most recent Op-Ed ("Channeling Dick Cheney," November 18, 2007) should have been tabled for a later date. Specifically, the first of April. Reading through it didn't exactly beg a question, at least not at first, but rather a conclusion: the charmingly colloquial, "You done fell out your tree." Kindly file my response alongside what is certain to be a fusillade of electronic mail.
On what successes, exactly, could you possibly base Cheney-based brinkmanship as a positive? (As Vice President, of course; his stellar track record in private practice wheeling and dealing is beyond dispute. And we'll leave alone, for the moment, the image of 70 million Persians quizzically adopting a befuddled Scooby-Doo pose in unison, with a sardonic, "What's his problem? Didn't that guy just sell us those centrifuges?" emanating toward the heavens in free-flowing Farsi.)
Assuming you weren't wear ing your I Think They're in the Last Throes, if You Will, of the Insurgency tee-shirt whilst writing "what's on my mind" for this column, please allow a couple of your assertions / suppositions to be roped back into reality:
i) Cheney may indeed have half a policy, as you say, but it's the kind that eats the other half.
ii) Stating that "...Cheney’s Dr. Strangelove imitation is totally wasted with President Bush and Secretary of State Condi Rice. Because the president and secretary of state have never been able to make up their minds as to what U.S. policy toward Iran should be — to bring about regime change or a change of behavior — it’s impossible to have any effective diplomacy" only obfuscates the true chain of command: Bush and Condi can make up their minds all they wish; if Dick doesn't do diplomacy, then there's no diplomacy, period.
iii) That the secretary of state should go play-acting to the Iranians as if they were dimwitted redskins about to lose either a little or a lot more land was a bit unnecessary, and borderline rude. They can always be bombed back to the Stone Age later, right?
iv) Quoting Robert Litwak was helpful, as “...for coercive diplomacy to work, you also need to be ready to take yes for an answer” takes us to the core of the Cheney legacy: There isn't any room for "yes" in his version of diplomacy, though there appears an inexhaustible capacity to make things worse by ignoring facts, baiting other nations and perpetuating conflict whenever possible. It's created an enormous tab that will take generations to pay off, running concomitant and irrespective of how level is the surface of the earth for some to drive their assorted Lexi through respective groves of olive trees...
v) Throwing Tony Soprano vs. Big Bird upon this hypothetical Obama canvas, however, was not helpful: Tony Soprano actually negotiated away conflict on occasion. He also generally punished, rather than rewarded, those beneath him who screwed up (and here you can add equal parts Bush to the recipe). You're describing Cheney the businessman with such an allusion, not Cheney the civil servant. Perhaps more appropriate would be sentencing the Vice President to spend his remaining days in office sporting a suit of yellow feathers, muttering on endlessly about Iraq's Snuffleupagus of Mass Destruction.
vi) It's doubtful that you'll ever hear an American trumpet Jimmy Carter's successes with respect to Iran, primarily because there weren't any. Were he to be elected, Barack Obama could indeed learn something by studying the Carter presidency thoroughly and then not replicating it. But what is perhaps even more uniquely American is an assumption that the only other option is to "...work, through, sort of the dark side, if you will..." with a Dick Cheney mindset. In recent months Cheney again carried on about the Iraq / al-Qaida link pre the 2003 U.S. invasion. Unless such fiction seems plausible to you, Mr Friedman, I can start with almost 3900 reasons why you should refrain from suggesting, even if partly in jest, that being Cheney-like in any respect is good for this country or its citizenry.
But let's let Lord Vader speak for himself:
“Let me make a generalized statement about a trend I see in the U.S. Congress that I find disturbing, that applies not only with respect to the Iranian situation but a number of others as well,” Cheney said. “I think we Americans sometimes make mistakes . . . There seems to be an assumption that somehow we know what’s best for everybody else and that we are going to use our economic clout to get everybody else to live the way we would like.”
"The good Lord didn't see fit to put oil and gas only where there are democratic regimes friendly to the United States."
Vintage (centrifuge-era) Cheney. Honk once to lift sanctions, twice if sending in the military increases stock options 3000 percent...
Mr Friedman, with all due respect for the times you've made sense, after allowing this semi-inscrutable piece to be published you may wish to just say Uncle, Tom.
PT
Seattle, Washington
Copyright 2007-2008 Jexican Publishing. All Rights Reserved.
CHANGE THE CHANNEL ALREADY
November 19, 2007
Dear Mr Friedman;
I feel that your most recent Op-Ed ("Channeling Dick Cheney," November 18, 2007) should have been tabled for a later date. Specifically, the first of April. Reading through it didn't exactly beg a question, at least not at first, but rather a conclusion: the charmingly colloquial, "You done fell out your tree." Kindly file my response alongside what is certain to be a fusillade of electronic mail.
On what successes, exactly, could you possibly base Cheney-based brinkmanship as a positive? (As Vice President, of course; his stellar track record in private practice wheeling and dealing is beyond dispute. And we'll leave alone, for the moment, the image of 70 million Persians quizzically adopting a befuddled Scooby-Doo pose in unison, with a sardonic, "What's his problem? Didn't that guy just sell us those centrifuges?" emanating toward the heavens in free-flowing Farsi.)
Assuming you weren't wear ing your I Think They're in the Last Throes, if You Will, of the Insurgency tee-shirt whilst writing "what's on my mind" for this column, please allow a couple of your assertions / suppositions to be roped back into reality:
i) Cheney may indeed have half a policy, as you say, but it's the kind that eats the other half.
ii) Stating that "...Cheney’s Dr. Strangelove imitation is totally wasted with President Bush and Secretary of State Condi Rice. Because the president and secretary of state have never been able to make up their minds as to what U.S. policy toward Iran should be — to bring about regime change or a change of behavior — it’s impossible to have any effective diplomacy" only obfuscates the true chain of command: Bush and Condi can make up their minds all they wish; if Dick doesn't do diplomacy, then there's no diplomacy, period.
iii) That the secretary of state should go play-acting to the Iranians as if they were dimwitted redskins about to lose either a little or a lot more land was a bit unnecessary, and borderline rude. They can always be bombed back to the Stone Age later, right?
iv) Quoting Robert Litwak was helpful, as “...for coercive diplomacy to work, you also need to be ready to take yes for an answer” takes us to the core of the Cheney legacy: There isn't any room for "yes" in his version of diplomacy, though there appears an inexhaustible capacity to make things worse by ignoring facts, baiting other nations and perpetuating conflict whenever possible. It's created an enormous tab that will take generations to pay off, running concomitant and irrespective of how level is the surface of the earth for some to drive their assorted Lexi through respective groves of olive trees...
v) Throwing Tony Soprano vs. Big Bird upon this hypothetical Obama canvas, however, was not helpful: Tony Soprano actually negotiated away conflict on occasion. He also generally punished, rather than rewarded, those beneath him who screwed up (and here you can add equal parts Bush to the recipe). You're describing Cheney the businessman with such an allusion, not Cheney the civil servant. Perhaps more appropriate would be sentencing the Vice President to spend his remaining days in office sporting a suit of yellow feathers, muttering on endlessly about Iraq's Snuffleupagus of Mass Destruction.
vi) It's doubtful that you'll ever hear an American trumpet Jimmy Carter's successes with respect to Iran, primarily because there weren't any. Were he to be elected, Barack Obama could indeed learn something by studying the Carter presidency thoroughly and then not replicating it. But what is perhaps even more uniquely American is an assumption that the only other option is to "...work, through, sort of the dark side, if you will..." with a Dick Cheney mindset. In recent months Cheney again carried on about the Iraq / al-Qaida link pre the 2003 U.S. invasion. Unless such fiction seems plausible to you, Mr Friedman, I can start with almost 3900 reasons why you should refrain from suggesting, even if partly in jest, that being Cheney-like in any respect is good for this country or its citizenry.
But let's let Lord Vader speak for himself:
“Let me make a generalized statement about a trend I see in the U.S. Congress that I find disturbing, that applies not only with respect to the Iranian situation but a number of others as well,” Cheney said. “I think we Americans sometimes make mistakes . . . There seems to be an assumption that somehow we know what’s best for everybody else and that we are going to use our economic clout to get everybody else to live the way we would like.”
"The good Lord didn't see fit to put oil and gas only where there are democratic regimes friendly to the United States."
Vintage (centrifuge-era) Cheney. Honk once to lift sanctions, twice if sending in the military increases stock options 3000 percent...
Mr Friedman, with all due respect for the times you've made sense, after allowing this semi-inscrutable piece to be published you may wish to just say Uncle, Tom.
PT
Seattle, Washington
Copyright 2007-2008 Jexican Publishing. All Rights Reserved.
Sunday, April 6, 2008
Primum Non Nocere VIII
(part one) (part two) (part three) (part four) (part five) (part six) (part seven)
December 5, 2007 1:02:43 PM PST
(You'll all kindly forgive me for neither picking up the phone nor writing this twice...it may very well be a tragedy, but it's no more an emergency than it has been for seven months running...)
E was admitted last night to Pomerado. As I'm sure was inferred, the chill-out in Mexico was equal parts self-detox for E and rest for Mom, which ceased abruptly upon their return Monday afternoon. Details are significant, yet at the same time irrelevant; stress triggers, a psychological demon pulling the reins of physical minions - nothing new.
Mom and I spent about three hours trying to explain why going to the ER would be a huge mistake - E, in pain, is still of the opinion that one can pop in, get enough narcotic to snap out of it, go home, etc., though that's not what happens, ever - but it was of no use. Though Mom would have kept going with the heartbreaking knowledge of what actually happens in the hospital, I finally relented, knowing that E's mind would stubbornly cling to what she regards as the only viable option, even if it meant having a stroke, aneurysm, heart attack, etc. to get there. Within a few minutes of that decision she lost almost all motor skills and had to be carried to the bathroom, car, etc. Sad. Had this been any other time and person, the level of absurdity of having a lengthy argument with someone who looks like they are having a stroke would be huge; yet, we still tried to explain logically why it will only get worse going to the hospital, bas ed on every other time before, as if this were just another family discussion. After getting the green light to go to the ER, her brain completely fogged over and she became almost paralyzed. Very telling and very dangerous.
Obviously, we didn't just pop in the ER. She is in room 2-- on a morphine / Diladud treatment plan, every few hours, with a "light" steroid (lighter than 1000mg of IV Prednisone like before) as well. If any thing's different, it's that, maybe, this time everyone named T--- is on board with dismissing the destructive labcoats posing as her physicians. Of course E doesn't see the narcotics as destructive, as they are necessary. She is better today than last night, and perhaps will be able to leave tomorrow. The realist in me thinks it might be closer to next week, when the insurance will again cover a few hundred dollars worth of Oxycontin.
Whatever the fuck it is - and I'm quite certain I know, but that's irrelevant because it's not happening to my body - it will only be undone when E stops suffering, and that may be never. I'm afraid that she will be bearing this cross (which she has the power to vaporize) for the rest of her life. She is a hairline away from somebody diagnosing this as drug addiction exacerbated by a mental/psychological disorder, and while that will tidy things up neatly for the insurance company, it will (probably) thrust E into total chaos, Mom alongside her. In just over 24 hours I watched her go from being able to drive a car Monday afternoon to sliding off a sitting position and hitting the ground with her face, unable to correct it. In between lies the state where it can still be roped in, but I just don't know how to get E to see it that way. She doesn't notice, and will therefore not admit, that she goes back and forth, from paralysis to full use of everything and back - I watched this again yesterday. And, obviously, I have been out of the loop with regard to drug dosage, etc., as my presence here is becoming one more of intrusion than anything.
The "hemiplegic migraine," as lovely sounding as that label is, may have to be replaced by "retractable stroke," because that's what it looks like. In their own way, both Mom and E know that it's the drugs talking, and that, were the opiates removed, what would then be exposed to light is even more intimidating. By staying in perpetual states of physical impairment that unpleasant truth will remain un-dealt with.
Wish I had better news...am still advocating biofeedback and hypnosis (particularly hypnosis), though only to Mom. If I want E to embrace it, I'm better off paying some yutz with a name tag to tout its virtues, and then rallying against it myself...only half-kidding...
She was speaking fairly well when I was there this morning if you would like to call - She's lucid, and "here," unlike the last visit in September.
December 5, 2007 4:09:08 PM PST
Thanks for the update. When I read the postpone lunch in an earlier email, I sort of expected this news.
I can't tell you how sad I feel at us all knowing that this episode, and it no longer matters how much is actually physically produced or psychologically as a demand for drugs; that this may be the exit strategy that she is putting in the hands of the insurance company to write her off as an addict.
You have already, probably accurately, painted that devil on the wall, and what happens when he steps out of the painting at the next episode when insurance has raised the drawbridge over the moat around Pomerado hospital and the only options are either illicit drugs or the snake pit of county detox?
I know you have tried to tell E that, and I know that she hasn't accepted it as truth.
I don't know what the depth of your resources are, yours, your mom's and Brother J's, but I'm pretty sure, that unless we're talking mid-six figures, the conclusion is foretold. Then what?
I know that none of us can accept, at this point, that there is no solution that doesn't originate within E, and sans that, no solution at all.
If she's going to be there tomorrow and not released, I may try to visit, but will call first.
December 6, 2007 12:16:25 AM PST
It is sad, yes.
The only thing with which I would respectfully disagree - if it's even that - is this roadblock present just slightly larger than some Chuy with an orange vest redirecting traffic: that a) E still considers this a disease, and is not in a place where she can comprehend this as a disorder and, b) that taking drugs while referring to it as "medicine" makes for a very difficult, perhaps insurmountable wall. I'm very concerned about her psyche makeup, precisely because she is so intelligent, and while she can appreciate that drugs are a no-no enough to self-detox last week after seven months of habitual use (to her credit), she will continue to view, and refer to, that which transforms her physically in the third person. No "medicine" is ever going to remove that, and the brutal truth is all the support by way of family, diet, exercise will help (skipping over the co-dependency part here for a sec), and that's it - it won't solve. Having the insurance pull the plug will be a shocker, and not necessarily a bad one, provided she can survive it. Beyond that, however, the actual beast resides. Psychiatry may help, but, frankly, so would internalizing good routines instead of bad ones, be they mental, physical, dietary, et-fucking-cetera (stop me if you've heard this one before...).
An old parable was written for just such an occasion:
The Westerner, having forsaken the hot wife, big house and awesome job, and having trekked across the world in search of enlightenment, finally reaches the Tibetan mountain top ragged, hungry and desperate. He cries out to the wise old monk he finds meditating there: "Oh master, I have traveled many miles to reach you. I have renounced everything worldly and stand before you a poor soul seeking guidance. I have suffered greatly, master, what should I do?!"
"Stop suffering."
The garrisons we build sometimes, and sometimes unknowingly...and what lengths we'll go to fortify them...again, nothing new...
Mid-six figure numbers are no problem, just as soon as decimal point placement becomes optional...
Seriously, she has racked up over 100k this year in the hospital charges, easy. And for what? Certainly not to get better. It was short-lived, but 50 bucks a night in Puerto Nuevo to shake, rattle and roll narcotic addiction was the best money spent in a long time. I have to believe that that time will come around again.
It is devastating to watch the (figurative) compression going on in E's skull repeatedly every few months, and I've accepted that the crap shoot that will be presented sometime in the future c/o Blue Shield may have ghastly results. She may also snap out of it and go sell entire floors of Trump condos in Baja. I'm completely serious.
She was good enough tonight to not have - for the first time that I'm aware of - my mother stay at the hospital with her all night. We'll see what's what by morning.
With hope,
December 6, 2007 2:18:17 PM PST
While I respectfully agree with your analysis, I equally respectfully submit that what you call it doesn't matter as much as what you do about it, and, with as independent a spirit as E, the only one who can do something to accept that the cart is driving the horse, is E.
Until she does, all the logic in the world is going to be received with nods of understanding and efforts to toe arbitrary lines in the sand.....until the next episode of need manifests itself.
Yes, having the wellspring of available "medicine" dry up will be a shocker, and maybe that will be the sink or swim point, though I know how heartbreaking it is to step out of the "bursting radius" of co-dependency. Been there; done that.
As for old parables, here's one I found lurking just under my starboard parietal suture:
One of the last living members of The Hohndlers; an obscure tribe of itinerant hypermerchants, often afflicted with perceived needs for substance abuse, sought solace in the advice of The Guru of Small Things, who resided in a small but lavishly furnished cave in Ojai, California.
Assuming the humble pose of the supplicant, the Hohndler said to the guru: "oh, wise guru, I can't imagine never again having access to the magic potions that, while I know are harmful to me, seem to make me forget my pains".
And the wise guru said: "well, my child. then don't imagine never having that access; just imagine not having it today...".
As basic as that may sound, it's the philosophy that has made AA and NA work, for the average and the super achiever. Just get through today, just today....but first you have to want to, and that's the trick...
I hope she does want to, if not today then soon.
December 7, 2007 11:16:25 PM PST
That's as good a parable as any, and it most certainly does work.
Keeping it brief:
E's doctors are flustered; the neurologist has conceded defeat and removed himself, and the primary is openly agitated and would like E out of the hospital (I'm sure he's having difficulty "Shielding Blue" missiles of inquiry from penetrating select orificee). He has dropped her IV narcotic from 10mg morphine every so and so to 4 mg, but has re-introduced the long-acting Oxycontins, in fact the exact same dose as in September, and July, and May, etc. It's retarded - there's really no other way to describe it.
E will leave tomorrow, and be right back in the same holding pattern, addicted to narcotics. Worse, she will continue to believe that narcotics are a legitimate headache remedy, even if at least three doctors (not those mentioned above) have said explicitly that they aren't.
As I've mentioned, if something can go on and off - instantly - then I'm of the opinion that can be reinforced, and both directions. Thus far it's only been going one direction, and (I hope) E will soon be ready to accept what is so obvious: that she makes it worse on a sub-conscious power grid that -as if that's not bad enough - is swimming in opiate dependence, reinforcing the myopic "knowledge" that this will go away if I just take these pills, and so forth...
Gently, I mentioned as much to her today, in front of my mom, and with an example of just a few minutes prior: when the neurologist was in, she looked like she had cerebral palsy or worse - barely slurring words out of the side of her mouth, her right side shot, etc. - but a few minutes later she was sitting up, her right leg normal, both eyes open and even; everything, and usually just for a sec or two and then it is sent packing. I framed it politely, of course, but how in the world can this be programmed into her skull without, well, programming? This is what I was referring to when notating the drug addiction, which is a big deal, is secondary - and, when the drugs are gone, if she doesn't have her hard drive scrubbed, then the slightest thing will bring about the same migraine-induced reaction, which will then require narcotics...
Yes, it's frustrating...and the thought of placing hidden cameras occurred to me months ago, as wacky as that sounds. E transforms; I've been biting my tongue for too long as it is, and am already complicit in perpetuating this shit. The no-diet sodas diet, the clean up your own mess and exercise daily, the question authority when it's all about pharmaceuticals, etc.; it's all ancillary, but necessary - erasing those big, unattainable plans for Where We're Going, and just focusing on How We Get There for today and today only. Like your Choo Choo of the Small Things up in Ojai: I think I can - today. Period. Cut, print, wrap; you'll know it when you can do more...
Trying to help implement solid daily habits is the best I could do without freaking everyone out with the truth, a truth that might do even more damage out loud anyway.
I'm not a Thoreau guy, but I read a blurb a few weeks ago that makes perfect sense, and is always applicable: "Do not worry about how small the beginnings. For once something is done correctly, it is done forever." Good for questioning slavery or the annexation of Mexico, or for just putting down the cheese doodles...
Pretty simple shtuff there...and yet I'm still working on my numerous One Day at a Timers myself...starting with being in the Nile about being brief...sheesh!
I set another appointment with a psychiatrist (the first was a bust) today, as well as a counselor whom Lisa has seen before, and who has experience with CBT/NLP. Lisa is receptive to trying both, and that's encouraging...
December 7, 2007 11:50:32 PM PST
Thanks for the update, however depressing it has to be for all of you and me too. The frustration of knowing that you are watching a sentient being determined to keep doing what's destructive because she has programmed herself to believe that she is treating an ailment rather than feeding an addiction must make it almost impossible to stay the course. What course? Just being there to pick up the pieces...
My silly little parable is pretty shopworn. I trotted it out for my son R for years, saying: "You don't have to not ever do drugs; just don't do drugs today". It still took years, and he only did it when I stopped being his co-dependent and gave him a card to keep in his pocket so that they'd know who to call to pick up the remains...
So what will you do at the next regression, and she wants to go back to Pomerado?
December 8, 2007 12:43:13 AM PST
That's the question...
It's late, but what comes to mind is trying to get my mother to be so incapacitated that Lisa waits on her, does her wash, listens to her moan, feeds her drugs and occasionally helps her in the bathroom when my mother can't tidy things up on her own.
It feels like crap to write that, and it's not very realistic, but in my heart I know that's one way to knock off this nonsense in a hurry. E needs to be brought back into reality, or forsake some liberties if she opts not to. I do hope it's not the latter.
I am charged with continuing to do what I am able, and that is, mainly, reminding her that she does indeed hold the power to survive without such suffering. She does not yet accept as much, thinking it is a thing-in-itself that she can neither cure nor chase away. But that's why they call it therapy, right? A little patience-in-Russian music, please...(I'll need it)...
I've accepted E's possible futures some time ago. My mother is not quite there, but does realize how being a co-dependent is not so helpful. It's tough, as I know you know...
December 8, 2007 8:00:45 AM PST
There are no good choices left, are there?
I think we are both familiar enough with addictive behavior to know that brave attempts at compliance with helpful programs will be evidenced, if only to demonstrate that relapsed needs are "real"..I don't know a way to defeat that. Perhaps it may require her needing to be the helper to your mom, but that could be only too real if you weren't there, and with tragic results.
Lisa may not be in a truth accepting mode today, but that wise guru in Ojai would say "today ain't over."
December 10, 2007 12:35:09 PM PST
Thought I'd be current and pass along a post-sibling retrieval update to youse even if there isn't one. After leaving the hospital a couple of days ago, E went into the ER Tuesday night pretty incapacitated after complaining for hours about a throbbing headache and becoming so immobile we carried her in (she had left Saturday night in a wheelchair and with her head throbbing). A (relatively) small amount of steroid has been re-introduced, along with 240mg of Oxycontin daily, which is 240mg more than this past Monday saw. She is with oxygen tank, TV remote and the occasional plate of sustenance. Last night she was walking around downstairs with eyes open and extremities in full regalia, serving herself munchies and even washing a dish, which, it would seem, lends credence to the theory that E does not go from looking like she needs her own telethon one day to...well, I believe I've covered this already...
E believes she can't control it, or at least is awash in enough of a chemical mindset to believe that she believes she can't control it. And maybe she can't. That she may very well march to her death in this fashion is almost unbearably tragic; that she will spend the next ten years taking Moms along with her is just rude, and unacceptable. But what to do? I would like to be macho enough to say that failure is not an option, but failure is a very real option. In fact it has been the primary option-du-jour out of the last seven months of "jours."
Am forwarding the links I dug up this morning (it took all of five minutes), ones I am presenting to E and Mom, in that what is blatantly obvious might sound legit coming from others (though Mom is already on board with the narcotics-only-create-headaches knowledge). Things are exactly the same here, and, undoubtedly, a little too much truth coming out of my mouth will broker exactly the same results as past attempts. Which means, at great personal sadness, that I can only back off and let others live their lives as they so wish.
I don't think it's possible for Mom to do any more than acknowledge that the co-dependence has become so prevalent it has created its own gravitational field...there's just too much heartbreak on the table for her to say "no" and "enough already." I hope I'm wrong...
There are appointments for psychiatrists and counselors this week, and perhaps something will come of that. I believe botox was also approved, and was helpful in the past.
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Health/story?id=1696888
http://www.mhni.com/faqs_other_head.aspx#rebound
http://www.mhni.com/faqs_opioids.aspx
Thursday, December 13, 2007 11:46 PM
E is back to being E, in that she is mobile, making plans, etc., and I think Mom is just happy that the darker clouds have blown over, even if it means round-the-clock Oxycontin. We took E to a psychiatrist yesterday, and there are possible biofeedback, CBT and disorder appointments coming up. Perhaps something will come of it that's not more tragedy, but I'm not particularly hopeful. As I said to Mom recently, you don't let the gambling junkie decide how much weekly casino time they're allowed; or, say, watch someone show up for drug counseling high and expect their sincerity to be taken seriously. I think Mom understands this...E cannot, at least not now...
Copyright 2007-2008 Jexican Publishing. All Rights Reserved.
December 5, 2007 1:02:43 PM PST
(You'll all kindly forgive me for neither picking up the phone nor writing this twice...it may very well be a tragedy, but it's no more an emergency than it has been for seven months running...)
E was admitted last night to Pomerado. As I'm sure was inferred, the chill-out in Mexico was equal parts self-detox for E and rest for Mom, which ceased abruptly upon their return Monday afternoon. Details are significant, yet at the same time irrelevant; stress triggers, a psychological demon pulling the reins of physical minions - nothing new.
Mom and I spent about three hours trying to explain why going to the ER would be a huge mistake - E, in pain, is still of the opinion that one can pop in, get enough narcotic to snap out of it, go home, etc., though that's not what happens, ever - but it was of no use. Though Mom would have kept going with the heartbreaking knowledge of what actually happens in the hospital, I finally relented, knowing that E's mind would stubbornly cling to what she regards as the only viable option, even if it meant having a stroke, aneurysm, heart attack, etc. to get there. Within a few minutes of that decision she lost almost all motor skills and had to be carried to the bathroom, car, etc. Sad. Had this been any other time and person, the level of absurdity of having a lengthy argument with someone who looks like they are having a stroke would be huge; yet, we still tried to explain logically why it will only get worse going to the hospital, bas ed on every other time before, as if this were just another family discussion. After getting the green light to go to the ER, her brain completely fogged over and she became almost paralyzed. Very telling and very dangerous.
Obviously, we didn't just pop in the ER. She is in room 2-- on a morphine / Diladud treatment plan, every few hours, with a "light" steroid (lighter than 1000mg of IV Prednisone like before) as well. If any thing's different, it's that, maybe, this time everyone named T--- is on board with dismissing the destructive labcoats posing as her physicians. Of course E doesn't see the narcotics as destructive, as they are necessary. She is better today than last night, and perhaps will be able to leave tomorrow. The realist in me thinks it might be closer to next week, when the insurance will again cover a few hundred dollars worth of Oxycontin.
Whatever the fuck it is - and I'm quite certain I know, but that's irrelevant because it's not happening to my body - it will only be undone when E stops suffering, and that may be never. I'm afraid that she will be bearing this cross (which she has the power to vaporize) for the rest of her life. She is a hairline away from somebody diagnosing this as drug addiction exacerbated by a mental/psychological disorder, and while that will tidy things up neatly for the insurance company, it will (probably) thrust E into total chaos, Mom alongside her. In just over 24 hours I watched her go from being able to drive a car Monday afternoon to sliding off a sitting position and hitting the ground with her face, unable to correct it. In between lies the state where it can still be roped in, but I just don't know how to get E to see it that way. She doesn't notice, and will therefore not admit, that she goes back and forth, from paralysis to full use of everything and back - I watched this again yesterday. And, obviously, I have been out of the loop with regard to drug dosage, etc., as my presence here is becoming one more of intrusion than anything.
The "hemiplegic migraine," as lovely sounding as that label is, may have to be replaced by "retractable stroke," because that's what it looks like. In their own way, both Mom and E know that it's the drugs talking, and that, were the opiates removed, what would then be exposed to light is even more intimidating. By staying in perpetual states of physical impairment that unpleasant truth will remain un-dealt with.
Wish I had better news...am still advocating biofeedback and hypnosis (particularly hypnosis), though only to Mom. If I want E to embrace it, I'm better off paying some yutz with a name tag to tout its virtues, and then rallying against it myself...only half-kidding...
She was speaking fairly well when I was there this morning if you would like to call - She's lucid, and "here," unlike the last visit in September.
December 5, 2007 4:09:08 PM PST
Thanks for the update. When I read the postpone lunch in an earlier email, I sort of expected this news.
I can't tell you how sad I feel at us all knowing that this episode, and it no longer matters how much is actually physically produced or psychologically as a demand for drugs; that this may be the exit strategy that she is putting in the hands of the insurance company to write her off as an addict.
You have already, probably accurately, painted that devil on the wall, and what happens when he steps out of the painting at the next episode when insurance has raised the drawbridge over the moat around Pomerado hospital and the only options are either illicit drugs or the snake pit of county detox?
I know you have tried to tell E that, and I know that she hasn't accepted it as truth.
I don't know what the depth of your resources are, yours, your mom's and Brother J's, but I'm pretty sure, that unless we're talking mid-six figures, the conclusion is foretold. Then what?
I know that none of us can accept, at this point, that there is no solution that doesn't originate within E, and sans that, no solution at all.
If she's going to be there tomorrow and not released, I may try to visit, but will call first.
December 6, 2007 12:16:25 AM PST
It is sad, yes.
The only thing with which I would respectfully disagree - if it's even that - is this roadblock present just slightly larger than some Chuy with an orange vest redirecting traffic: that a) E still considers this a disease, and is not in a place where she can comprehend this as a disorder and, b) that taking drugs while referring to it as "medicine" makes for a very difficult, perhaps insurmountable wall. I'm very concerned about her psyche makeup, precisely because she is so intelligent, and while she can appreciate that drugs are a no-no enough to self-detox last week after seven months of habitual use (to her credit), she will continue to view, and refer to, that which transforms her physically in the third person. No "medicine" is ever going to remove that, and the brutal truth is all the support by way of family, diet, exercise will help (skipping over the co-dependency part here for a sec), and that's it - it won't solve. Having the insurance pull the plug will be a shocker, and not necessarily a bad one, provided she can survive it. Beyond that, however, the actual beast resides. Psychiatry may help, but, frankly, so would internalizing good routines instead of bad ones, be they mental, physical, dietary, et-fucking-cetera (stop me if you've heard this one before...).
An old parable was written for just such an occasion:
The Westerner, having forsaken the hot wife, big house and awesome job, and having trekked across the world in search of enlightenment, finally reaches the Tibetan mountain top ragged, hungry and desperate. He cries out to the wise old monk he finds meditating there: "Oh master, I have traveled many miles to reach you. I have renounced everything worldly and stand before you a poor soul seeking guidance. I have suffered greatly, master, what should I do?!"
"Stop suffering."
The garrisons we build sometimes, and sometimes unknowingly...and what lengths we'll go to fortify them...again, nothing new...
Mid-six figure numbers are no problem, just as soon as decimal point placement becomes optional...
Seriously, she has racked up over 100k this year in the hospital charges, easy. And for what? Certainly not to get better. It was short-lived, but 50 bucks a night in Puerto Nuevo to shake, rattle and roll narcotic addiction was the best money spent in a long time. I have to believe that that time will come around again.
It is devastating to watch the (figurative) compression going on in E's skull repeatedly every few months, and I've accepted that the crap shoot that will be presented sometime in the future c/o Blue Shield may have ghastly results. She may also snap out of it and go sell entire floors of Trump condos in Baja. I'm completely serious.
She was good enough tonight to not have - for the first time that I'm aware of - my mother stay at the hospital with her all night. We'll see what's what by morning.
With hope,
December 6, 2007 2:18:17 PM PST
While I respectfully agree with your analysis, I equally respectfully submit that what you call it doesn't matter as much as what you do about it, and, with as independent a spirit as E, the only one who can do something to accept that the cart is driving the horse, is E.
Until she does, all the logic in the world is going to be received with nods of understanding and efforts to toe arbitrary lines in the sand.....until the next episode of need manifests itself.
Yes, having the wellspring of available "medicine" dry up will be a shocker, and maybe that will be the sink or swim point, though I know how heartbreaking it is to step out of the "bursting radius" of co-dependency. Been there; done that.
As for old parables, here's one I found lurking just under my starboard parietal suture:
One of the last living members of The Hohndlers; an obscure tribe of itinerant hypermerchants, often afflicted with perceived needs for substance abuse, sought solace in the advice of The Guru of Small Things, who resided in a small but lavishly furnished cave in Ojai, California.
Assuming the humble pose of the supplicant, the Hohndler said to the guru: "oh, wise guru, I can't imagine never again having access to the magic potions that, while I know are harmful to me, seem to make me forget my pains".
And the wise guru said: "well, my child. then don't imagine never having that access; just imagine not having it today...".
As basic as that may sound, it's the philosophy that has made AA and NA work, for the average and the super achiever. Just get through today, just today....but first you have to want to, and that's the trick...
I hope she does want to, if not today then soon.
December 7, 2007 11:16:25 PM PST
That's as good a parable as any, and it most certainly does work.
Keeping it brief:
E's doctors are flustered; the neurologist has conceded defeat and removed himself, and the primary is openly agitated and would like E out of the hospital (I'm sure he's having difficulty "Shielding Blue" missiles of inquiry from penetrating select orificee). He has dropped her IV narcotic from 10mg morphine every so and so to 4 mg, but has re-introduced the long-acting Oxycontins, in fact the exact same dose as in September, and July, and May, etc. It's retarded - there's really no other way to describe it.
E will leave tomorrow, and be right back in the same holding pattern, addicted to narcotics. Worse, she will continue to believe that narcotics are a legitimate headache remedy, even if at least three doctors (not those mentioned above) have said explicitly that they aren't.
As I've mentioned, if something can go on and off - instantly - then I'm of the opinion that can be reinforced, and both directions. Thus far it's only been going one direction, and (I hope) E will soon be ready to accept what is so obvious: that she makes it worse on a sub-conscious power grid that -as if that's not bad enough - is swimming in opiate dependence, reinforcing the myopic "knowledge" that this will go away if I just take these pills, and so forth...
Gently, I mentioned as much to her today, in front of my mom, and with an example of just a few minutes prior: when the neurologist was in, she looked like she had cerebral palsy or worse - barely slurring words out of the side of her mouth, her right side shot, etc. - but a few minutes later she was sitting up, her right leg normal, both eyes open and even; everything, and usually just for a sec or two and then it is sent packing. I framed it politely, of course, but how in the world can this be programmed into her skull without, well, programming? This is what I was referring to when notating the drug addiction, which is a big deal, is secondary - and, when the drugs are gone, if she doesn't have her hard drive scrubbed, then the slightest thing will bring about the same migraine-induced reaction, which will then require narcotics...
Yes, it's frustrating...and the thought of placing hidden cameras occurred to me months ago, as wacky as that sounds. E transforms; I've been biting my tongue for too long as it is, and am already complicit in perpetuating this shit. The no-diet sodas diet, the clean up your own mess and exercise daily, the question authority when it's all about pharmaceuticals, etc.; it's all ancillary, but necessary - erasing those big, unattainable plans for Where We're Going, and just focusing on How We Get There for today and today only. Like your Choo Choo of the Small Things up in Ojai: I think I can - today. Period. Cut, print, wrap; you'll know it when you can do more...
Trying to help implement solid daily habits is the best I could do without freaking everyone out with the truth, a truth that might do even more damage out loud anyway.
I'm not a Thoreau guy, but I read a blurb a few weeks ago that makes perfect sense, and is always applicable: "Do not worry about how small the beginnings. For once something is done correctly, it is done forever." Good for questioning slavery or the annexation of Mexico, or for just putting down the cheese doodles...
Pretty simple shtuff there...and yet I'm still working on my numerous One Day at a Timers myself...starting with being in the Nile about being brief...sheesh!
I set another appointment with a psychiatrist (the first was a bust) today, as well as a counselor whom Lisa has seen before, and who has experience with CBT/NLP. Lisa is receptive to trying both, and that's encouraging...
December 7, 2007 11:50:32 PM PST
Thanks for the update, however depressing it has to be for all of you and me too. The frustration of knowing that you are watching a sentient being determined to keep doing what's destructive because she has programmed herself to believe that she is treating an ailment rather than feeding an addiction must make it almost impossible to stay the course. What course? Just being there to pick up the pieces...
My silly little parable is pretty shopworn. I trotted it out for my son R for years, saying: "You don't have to not ever do drugs; just don't do drugs today". It still took years, and he only did it when I stopped being his co-dependent and gave him a card to keep in his pocket so that they'd know who to call to pick up the remains...
So what will you do at the next regression, and she wants to go back to Pomerado?
December 8, 2007 12:43:13 AM PST
That's the question...
It's late, but what comes to mind is trying to get my mother to be so incapacitated that Lisa waits on her, does her wash, listens to her moan, feeds her drugs and occasionally helps her in the bathroom when my mother can't tidy things up on her own.
It feels like crap to write that, and it's not very realistic, but in my heart I know that's one way to knock off this nonsense in a hurry. E needs to be brought back into reality, or forsake some liberties if she opts not to. I do hope it's not the latter.
I am charged with continuing to do what I am able, and that is, mainly, reminding her that she does indeed hold the power to survive without such suffering. She does not yet accept as much, thinking it is a thing-in-itself that she can neither cure nor chase away. But that's why they call it therapy, right? A little patience-in-Russian music, please...(I'll need it)...
I've accepted E's possible futures some time ago. My mother is not quite there, but does realize how being a co-dependent is not so helpful. It's tough, as I know you know...
December 8, 2007 8:00:45 AM PST
There are no good choices left, are there?
I think we are both familiar enough with addictive behavior to know that brave attempts at compliance with helpful programs will be evidenced, if only to demonstrate that relapsed needs are "real"..I don't know a way to defeat that. Perhaps it may require her needing to be the helper to your mom, but that could be only too real if you weren't there, and with tragic results.
Lisa may not be in a truth accepting mode today, but that wise guru in Ojai would say "today ain't over."
December 10, 2007 12:35:09 PM PST
Thought I'd be current and pass along a post-sibling retrieval update to youse even if there isn't one. After leaving the hospital a couple of days ago, E went into the ER Tuesday night pretty incapacitated after complaining for hours about a throbbing headache and becoming so immobile we carried her in (she had left Saturday night in a wheelchair and with her head throbbing). A (relatively) small amount of steroid has been re-introduced, along with 240mg of Oxycontin daily, which is 240mg more than this past Monday saw. She is with oxygen tank, TV remote and the occasional plate of sustenance. Last night she was walking around downstairs with eyes open and extremities in full regalia, serving herself munchies and even washing a dish, which, it would seem, lends credence to the theory that E does not go from looking like she needs her own telethon one day to...well, I believe I've covered this already...
E believes she can't control it, or at least is awash in enough of a chemical mindset to believe that she believes she can't control it. And maybe she can't. That she may very well march to her death in this fashion is almost unbearably tragic; that she will spend the next ten years taking Moms along with her is just rude, and unacceptable. But what to do? I would like to be macho enough to say that failure is not an option, but failure is a very real option. In fact it has been the primary option-du-jour out of the last seven months of "jours."
Am forwarding the links I dug up this morning (it took all of five minutes), ones I am presenting to E and Mom, in that what is blatantly obvious might sound legit coming from others (though Mom is already on board with the narcotics-only-create-headaches knowledge). Things are exactly the same here, and, undoubtedly, a little too much truth coming out of my mouth will broker exactly the same results as past attempts. Which means, at great personal sadness, that I can only back off and let others live their lives as they so wish.
I don't think it's possible for Mom to do any more than acknowledge that the co-dependence has become so prevalent it has created its own gravitational field...there's just too much heartbreak on the table for her to say "no" and "enough already." I hope I'm wrong...
There are appointments for psychiatrists and counselors this week, and perhaps something will come of that. I believe botox was also approved, and was helpful in the past.
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Health/story?id=1696888
http://www.mhni.com/faqs_other_head.aspx#rebound
http://www.mhni.com/faqs_opioids.aspx
Thursday, December 13, 2007 11:46 PM
E is back to being E, in that she is mobile, making plans, etc., and I think Mom is just happy that the darker clouds have blown over, even if it means round-the-clock Oxycontin. We took E to a psychiatrist yesterday, and there are possible biofeedback, CBT and disorder appointments coming up. Perhaps something will come of it that's not more tragedy, but I'm not particularly hopeful. As I said to Mom recently, you don't let the gambling junkie decide how much weekly casino time they're allowed; or, say, watch someone show up for drug counseling high and expect their sincerity to be taken seriously. I think Mom understands this...E cannot, at least not now...
Copyright 2007-2008 Jexican Publishing. All Rights Reserved.
Primum Non Nocere VII
(part one) (part two) (part three) (part four) (part five) (part six) (part eight)
Monday, November 19, 2007 9:29 PM
I don't think much is happening here, holiday-wise ("we've" a new round of health problems, unfortunately). Matzo stuffing aside, I feel more connected to a cherry blossom festival as it is...anyway, if you would like to maybe grab a turkey club Thursday...after services, of course (I'll be visiting Our Lady of Perpetuate Deception)...
November 19, 2007 10:46:14 PM PST
By a new round of health problems, do you mean E?
Wednesday, November 21, 2007 9:46 AM
Yes, E...the removal of unnecessary / detrimental Big Pharma crap is to be heralded with great fanfare; unfortunately that only clears more playing field for drug addiction to start wrapping tentacles, or manacles, etc. I'll keep it short: still very, very happy that the Depakote, et. al., are in the rear view, and that symptoms are (for the most part) likewise. Opiates, as everyone knows - even the person who graduated from Seattle U minoring in chemistry and biology - readily replace this vacuum with a litany of ailments to occupy time, hinder wellness and cloud judgment. This is to say nothing of what I believe may very well be what some call a sematoform disorder; specifically, a conversion disorder. Only that, whatever it is, is almost certainly psychological before it becomes physical, and is now getting a less-fettered round-the-clock opium bath.
You can imagine the specifics as to why I haven't suggested any gets-togethers with "mom-n-dems"...there are plans and appointments with doctors and psychiatrists, with the second pain management guy (UCSD) suggesting a detox center in Mission Bay, etc. A case worker is looking into NLP/biofeedback practitioners that are covered, the guy I took E to in Mira Mesa being very helpful, but at $110 a pop.
Brother J, who turned 37 yesterday, can barely contain his rage, with the underlying thought being somewhere around age 40 shouldn't the kids be looking after the parents? Our mother's health is delicate enough, but it's a crapshoot to give E an ultimatum, for if she snaps irreversibly my mother's heart will break. Though we all know that E could just as easily make Eva Peron look like a wallflower if she (not Evita) would just get her head right.
November 21, 2007 2:04:07 PM PST
Sematofom-shematoform; it no longer matters what you or anyone else, including E calls it or how well any of us can interpret its manifestations.
All it may take is one more detox referral by one more covered specialist, and E, I predict, will find herself on the outside of coverage for anything more than a safeway shopping cart to hold all her worldly possessions.
Don't think for a moment that these scrivening pustules who approve coverage aren't building a case for disenfranchisement. They are.
As for fitting in a get-together with all players, we should do that. Perhaps while my memsahib is away? I'll whip up one of my famous road kill primaveras with ingredients appropriate for all exclusions, inclusions, and occlusions.
Brother J's comments are well taken, and happy birthday to him. Of course the last thing any parent wants (well, almost the last thing), is to have to be taken care of. The way you guys rallied to your mother's side at your dad's passing was impressive.
Your mom is doing her best to be independent and to not "need", but need she will, and if that need is in addition to what E may need, well....That may transcend the line between need and...sentence.
Of course when that bolt from the blue turfed me out of the workforce before I was ready, I wished I'd put away a bit more beforehand , but was triply glad that I hadn't been a complete shmuck and given up my military medical benefits and pension. For me to have had to be dependent on my sons is and was unthinkable...unthinkable. Enough on that, before I get diatribe-ish...
None of us of the phylum chordata, genus/surname T--- does well with ultimatums (ultimata?) Crystal clear understanding is the preferred avenue, and it must be conveyed. The very last words you ever want to hear are "why didn't you tell me?"
November 21, 2007 8:27:29 PM PST
I would agree that the Laverne & Shirley "shematoform, shemazelform" is becoming increasingly irrelevant. This ain't polio; i.e. you've (she's) not the luxury of clinging to a disease racking her body, since there isn't any. The one (glaring) exception being that some yutz along the way once said "You've got _____ (let's say 'an eating disorder')" and followed with "You need to take _____ (let's say 'prozac')" and E chose and still chooses to internalize, with Pavlovian efficacy, such brazen horsehit time and again. Add to that soup the ability of narcotics to always provide bountiful, mañana-like excuses and you have the present quandary. (Hint: it's not living in "de-Amazon"...)
You are most kind to elevate those within the health care Accounts Receivable corridors to the status of scrivening pustules (nice...). I am surprised the bastages haven't yet made a move, and I would welcome it if they do (see above: "This ain't polio"). Enough is enough.
Brother J's points are well taken, yes, and I hope to see our mother visit out in Vegas sometime soon for as long as she can and just chill...no one deserves it more...
We (royal and otherwise) are forced into contingency planning with the malleable success of crystal clear understanding regrettably temporary. When habitual narcotic use becomes past tense, things will obviously perk up. That s'mores and chloroform shit, however, will remain, whatever it is, and needs to be reprogrammed out of E's skull. I'm completely serious.
I would say, with an evenness that has only come with age, that my father was given so much native intelligence at birth that several of those on both sides of his place in line were left wanting, and surely became night watchmen or even republicans. After a decent night's sleep and a bowl of Wheaties I'm lucky to break 140 on an IQ quiz; he could top that with an additional 40 points after a half bottle of his beloved Smirnoff, easy. But what of clear understanding, or comprehension, when the aptitude is present, but the gravity surrounding that comprehension (speaking in health terms now) remains woefully absent - for whatever reason? E doesn't need to embrace wearing such blinders. It's debilitating and inconsiderate.
But it's not from a paucity of intellect, obviously...or is it? How else to explain, without inferring cruel intentions or drug-addled rationale as tidy explanations, such illogical decision making?
In E's case, I'm afraid we'll just be treading various levels of water until there's a cooling system flush. She is remarkably better than a couple of months ago...but...one only gets to say "I didn't know / why didn't you tell me?" so many times after knowing / having been told...
In my father's case, of course, in the space of a half an hour he could have made Aristotle's head spin with more RPMs than Linda Blair's, and left Ari scampering toward the causality of a bath house for solace...
Would be most honored to attend a PRK party (Primavera Road Kill) with as many as will decide to attend...can make it a re-education hot pot-luck if you like...
November 21, 2007 10:32:16 PM PST
It doesn't have to be polio; it's all relative and there is no universal threshhold of tolerance; nor is there one of self-determination to accept the RPGs that the Gods hit us with, with equanimity rather than despondency and dependence.
A break in Vegas would be great for your mom, I just can't imagine her doing it right now.
Your father, my brother, was indeed blessed with many creative and active gray cells at birth. I think I recall hearing that his IQ was measured in the 160s at Samuel J. Tilden high school in Brooklyn before he was turfed out of that institution. I'd guess that yours is right up there alongside that score, as mine was measured at 144 before a portion of it fried, and I've always thought your bulb wattage was right up there. While you father's innovative ability was incredible, his ability to execute those innovations was abysmally inept, and best left to lesser, but more disciplined intellects.
In Aristotle's case, he would have gladly given your dad all his worldly goods, the toga off his back, and gone out and stolen another toga to give him before limping off to said bathhouse, but eventually Ari would have snapped to the awareness that all the togas in all the gin joints in the world wouldn't have been enough....
I hope there's enough water to tread, and the strength to keep treading until change occurs.
PKK P/U pencilled into short term agenda.
Copyright 2007-2008 Jexican Publishing. All Rights Reserved.
Monday, November 19, 2007 9:29 PM
I don't think much is happening here, holiday-wise ("we've" a new round of health problems, unfortunately). Matzo stuffing aside, I feel more connected to a cherry blossom festival as it is...anyway, if you would like to maybe grab a turkey club Thursday...after services, of course (I'll be visiting Our Lady of Perpetuate Deception)...
November 19, 2007 10:46:14 PM PST
By a new round of health problems, do you mean E?
Wednesday, November 21, 2007 9:46 AM
Yes, E...the removal of unnecessary / detrimental Big Pharma crap is to be heralded with great fanfare; unfortunately that only clears more playing field for drug addiction to start wrapping tentacles, or manacles, etc. I'll keep it short: still very, very happy that the Depakote, et. al., are in the rear view, and that symptoms are (for the most part) likewise. Opiates, as everyone knows - even the person who graduated from Seattle U minoring in chemistry and biology - readily replace this vacuum with a litany of ailments to occupy time, hinder wellness and cloud judgment. This is to say nothing of what I believe may very well be what some call a sematoform disorder; specifically, a conversion disorder. Only that, whatever it is, is almost certainly psychological before it becomes physical, and is now getting a less-fettered round-the-clock opium bath.
You can imagine the specifics as to why I haven't suggested any gets-togethers with "mom-n-dems"...there are plans and appointments with doctors and psychiatrists, with the second pain management guy (UCSD) suggesting a detox center in Mission Bay, etc. A case worker is looking into NLP/biofeedback practitioners that are covered, the guy I took E to in Mira Mesa being very helpful, but at $110 a pop.
Brother J, who turned 37 yesterday, can barely contain his rage, with the underlying thought being somewhere around age 40 shouldn't the kids be looking after the parents? Our mother's health is delicate enough, but it's a crapshoot to give E an ultimatum, for if she snaps irreversibly my mother's heart will break. Though we all know that E could just as easily make Eva Peron look like a wallflower if she (not Evita) would just get her head right.
November 21, 2007 2:04:07 PM PST
Sematofom-shematoform; it no longer matters what you or anyone else, including E calls it or how well any of us can interpret its manifestations.
All it may take is one more detox referral by one more covered specialist, and E, I predict, will find herself on the outside of coverage for anything more than a safeway shopping cart to hold all her worldly possessions.
Don't think for a moment that these scrivening pustules who approve coverage aren't building a case for disenfranchisement. They are.
As for fitting in a get-together with all players, we should do that. Perhaps while my memsahib is away? I'll whip up one of my famous road kill primaveras with ingredients appropriate for all exclusions, inclusions, and occlusions.
Brother J's comments are well taken, and happy birthday to him. Of course the last thing any parent wants (well, almost the last thing), is to have to be taken care of. The way you guys rallied to your mother's side at your dad's passing was impressive.
Your mom is doing her best to be independent and to not "need", but need she will, and if that need is in addition to what E may need, well....That may transcend the line between need and...sentence.
Of course when that bolt from the blue turfed me out of the workforce before I was ready, I wished I'd put away a bit more beforehand , but was triply glad that I hadn't been a complete shmuck and given up my military medical benefits and pension. For me to have had to be dependent on my sons is and was unthinkable...unthinkable. Enough on that, before I get diatribe-ish...
None of us of the phylum chordata, genus/surname T--- does well with ultimatums (ultimata?) Crystal clear understanding is the preferred avenue, and it must be conveyed. The very last words you ever want to hear are "why didn't you tell me?"
November 21, 2007 8:27:29 PM PST
I would agree that the Laverne & Shirley "shematoform, shemazelform" is becoming increasingly irrelevant. This ain't polio; i.e. you've (she's) not the luxury of clinging to a disease racking her body, since there isn't any. The one (glaring) exception being that some yutz along the way once said "You've got _____ (let's say 'an eating disorder')" and followed with "You need to take _____ (let's say 'prozac')" and E chose and still chooses to internalize, with Pavlovian efficacy, such brazen horsehit time and again. Add to that soup the ability of narcotics to always provide bountiful, mañana-like excuses and you have the present quandary. (Hint: it's not living in "de-Amazon"...)
You are most kind to elevate those within the health care Accounts Receivable corridors to the status of scrivening pustules (nice...). I am surprised the bastages haven't yet made a move, and I would welcome it if they do (see above: "This ain't polio"). Enough is enough.
Brother J's points are well taken, yes, and I hope to see our mother visit out in Vegas sometime soon for as long as she can and just chill...no one deserves it more...
We (royal and otherwise) are forced into contingency planning with the malleable success of crystal clear understanding regrettably temporary. When habitual narcotic use becomes past tense, things will obviously perk up. That s'mores and chloroform shit, however, will remain, whatever it is, and needs to be reprogrammed out of E's skull. I'm completely serious.
I would say, with an evenness that has only come with age, that my father was given so much native intelligence at birth that several of those on both sides of his place in line were left wanting, and surely became night watchmen or even republicans. After a decent night's sleep and a bowl of Wheaties I'm lucky to break 140 on an IQ quiz; he could top that with an additional 40 points after a half bottle of his beloved Smirnoff, easy. But what of clear understanding, or comprehension, when the aptitude is present, but the gravity surrounding that comprehension (speaking in health terms now) remains woefully absent - for whatever reason? E doesn't need to embrace wearing such blinders. It's debilitating and inconsiderate.
But it's not from a paucity of intellect, obviously...or is it? How else to explain, without inferring cruel intentions or drug-addled rationale as tidy explanations, such illogical decision making?
In E's case, I'm afraid we'll just be treading various levels of water until there's a cooling system flush. She is remarkably better than a couple of months ago...but...one only gets to say "I didn't know / why didn't you tell me?" so many times after knowing / having been told...
In my father's case, of course, in the space of a half an hour he could have made Aristotle's head spin with more RPMs than Linda Blair's, and left Ari scampering toward the causality of a bath house for solace...
Would be most honored to attend a PRK party (Primavera Road Kill) with as many as will decide to attend...can make it a re-education hot pot-luck if you like...
November 21, 2007 10:32:16 PM PST
It doesn't have to be polio; it's all relative and there is no universal threshhold of tolerance; nor is there one of self-determination to accept the RPGs that the Gods hit us with, with equanimity rather than despondency and dependence.
A break in Vegas would be great for your mom, I just can't imagine her doing it right now.
Your father, my brother, was indeed blessed with many creative and active gray cells at birth. I think I recall hearing that his IQ was measured in the 160s at Samuel J. Tilden high school in Brooklyn before he was turfed out of that institution. I'd guess that yours is right up there alongside that score, as mine was measured at 144 before a portion of it fried, and I've always thought your bulb wattage was right up there. While you father's innovative ability was incredible, his ability to execute those innovations was abysmally inept, and best left to lesser, but more disciplined intellects.
In Aristotle's case, he would have gladly given your dad all his worldly goods, the toga off his back, and gone out and stolen another toga to give him before limping off to said bathhouse, but eventually Ari would have snapped to the awareness that all the togas in all the gin joints in the world wouldn't have been enough....
I hope there's enough water to tread, and the strength to keep treading until change occurs.
PKK P/U pencilled into short term agenda.
Copyright 2007-2008 Jexican Publishing. All Rights Reserved.
Friday, April 4, 2008
The Transoms of Our Minds (Dear Caroline version)
(On March 18, 2008, Barack Obama gave his now-famous speech on race relations. On the other side of the world, also on the 18th of March, Caroline Glick of Jerusalem Post fame posted her assessment of Obama's speech. She spoke of her own childhood in Chicago, was fairly critical of Obama and considered his distancing himself from the reverend with the big mouth a case of "too little too late." But she also notated a speaking event where she walked out until it was her turn at the podium because the guy speaking was a xenophobic bigot intent on painting all Muslims with the same brush. Her post may be read here. It was because of these words by her that I opted to send along a critique I wrote of an article of hers titled "Jihad's Campus Collaborators" that was published in the Jerusalem Post in February of 2007. I am reprinting below my as-yet unanswered letter to her along with my accompanying article on xenophobic tendencies and their potential energy.)
March 19, 2008
Dear Ms Glick:
Reading your columns from time to time, the fact that I might not always agree with your perspective is without fail trumped by consistently being more informed in the process. Your column yesterday, however, was particularly moving. Specifically, your conduct with respect to how you handled the speaking engagement in Dallas. It is because of yesterday's column that I have decided to send you a piece I wrote last year in response to another of your columns, one that was also quite affecting.
Your article "Jihad's Campus Collaborators" was sent my way by an uncle who had recently reviewed it with a former squadron mate soon after its initial publishing. A reply back to my uncle morphed into an article of its own, and is reprinted below. I took exception with the presentation that those cited by you that go on shooting sprees here in the US are possibly part of some larger, interwoven if undeclared community that has its foundations in triggers in the brain inherent once the Muslim faith has been internalized; that it may be as simple as viewing Islam as some serotonin reuptake inhibitor. While there is obvious truth that belief systems, once believed, can pave the way for an endless parade of abhorrent conduct, it's up to what's left of us in the sane community to arrest the problem as much as we are able, and a start might be acknowledging that a) people of all flavors just snap sometimes, and b) in this country they have remarkably easy access to firearms.
I would have had nothing to write if the "message of jihad being so strong" cited in your article was then followed with any of the countless examples available throughout the Middle East on a daily basis. To notate this potential energy here in the US, however, becoming possibly kinetic once "Sudden Jihad Syndrome" ensues, is lacking if we ignore the prevalence of automatic and semi-automatic weapons as extreme potential energy itself. As an example, the piece I'm sending your way was written about a month before the Virginia Tech shootings. I don't think it's a stretch to say that the headlines would have been slightly different if that unstable Korean kid was instead named Mohammad. Whether in shopping malls or institutes of learning, examples of males going meshuga with firearms are being replenished monthly, and with religion generally having nothing to do with it (here). What is noticeably absent from the reporting is the immunity provided gun makers, an immunity signed into law in 2005.
The following is a bit critical, and perhaps our similarities end somewhere between us both being born to Jewish parents here some four decades ago and only one of us making aliyah sometime after. I hope not.
I thank you in advance for your time.
The Transoms of Our Minds
March 11, 2007
It would seem to be the most obvious of logic, even in an often highly illogical world: If Johns Hopkins wouldn't regularly provide a forum for Christian Scientists, or if the Army Corps of Engineers would decline consultation from the Flat Earth Society, why would any self-respecting college president allow a microphone in the hand of a Holocaust denier? And yet, as Caroline Glick's recent piece in the Jerusalem Post amply reminds us ("Jihad's Campus Collaborators"), this form of "tolerance" for divergent beliefs is, more and more, an acceptable attitude with those at the university level. Educated people are permitting its proliferation, and calling attention to this sad fact cannot be understated. But what of the way we shine light on this growing trend, with the obvious objective being one of eradication?
As a recurrent theme in the article, the "battlefield of ideas" is of utmost importance; to be sure, it's perhaps the most important. Could we improve upon the way Ms Glick has presented our collective (read: any and all sane individuals') viewpoint - our "battlefield" in this global matter? I think so. I think the transition used from not investigating the seeds for potential terrorist acts germinating in the UK Muslim community to the tragedy of US college campuses allowing time for revisionist speakers by way of citing the individuals in the manner chosen for the article was a poor segue. So much so, in fact, that the age-old question popped into my head while assessing her choice of words: Is it good for Israel? Is it good for the Jews? There are ideas sewn into the tenor of the article that should be examined with this in mind.
Let's start from the introduction of US home-grown terror prospects.
Adding Sulejman Talovic to the list of those bent on doing Allah's bidding seems to be a stretch at best. An examination of both spree killings and planned assaults by crazed gunmen in the US, while containing obvious anti-Semitic behavior in some cases, has only one truly common thread in all these personal "jihads," namely: easy access to high-powered weapons. Including unstable individuals such as Naveed Afzal Haq, who along with Derrick Shareef and Sulejman Talovic are the names listed as groundwork for exploring the possible existence of "Sudden Jihad Syndrome," strikes me as an argument already setting out on loose footing unless a sympathetic target audience is expected. This is not to say Shareef's assertions of what he was willing to do on Allah's behalf should be discounted (although that's all he appears to have done on Allah's behalf), but that claiming, "As was the case with Talovic and with Naveed Afzal Haq, who murdered one woman and wounded five during hi s shooting rampage at the Seattle Jewish Federation last July, the media and federal authorities have hushed up and failed to investigate the jihadist motives..." is redirecting around the simple fact that these were angry, unstable humans with firearms, and by all accounts, not crossing off any checklist on the way to a few dozen virgins in the way so many malleable psyches in the Muslim world continue to accept as legitimate. If only requiring a surname's association as grounds for a symptom, the inclusion of Beltway sniper John Muhammad would appear to follow suit. Or, if religion is to be held blindly responsible for unconscionable acts, perhaps we should consider whom Jesus would bomb (in Northern Ireland).
Indeed, if we are able to open up our comprehension of the word "jihad" and consider this a Muslim description for aspects of the human condition, such as types of struggle in the eye of the beholder, or analogous to the almost unimaginable horrors wreaked upon women and children under the useful umbrella of the word "crusade," then an honest argument becomes possible. (Full disclosure: I'm one that considers both The Crusades and any rationale for jihad incontrovertible proof that religion just poisons the human skull, in the process excusing great swathes of corpses left in its wake.) The JPost article appears to sidestep this high road altogether, but in a refined manner that borders on sleight of hand. Again, taking factual data from the Policy Exchange report (though implying something quite different from the conclusion of the PE report's executive summary), then using examples that do not at all appear consistent with indoctrinated, brainwashed mentality from some far away madras: using two examples of males who simply snapped - one looking for Jews and one in Utah - and including another male who merely ran his mouth, all before deftly introducing the concept of "Sudden Jihad Syndrome," as a suggestion thrown into the fray as a possible means of an explanation.
Here the article makes a right-angle turn that should be reconsidered: in the space of just three short paragraphs, it explains the facility with which law enforcement might use this syndrome as a case closer to avoid cumbersome investigative work, and by the third paragraph has decreed the obvious place for such "...serious empirical study" is at the university level. Perfectly rationale assertions. It's the paragraph between that is a bit of a deal breaker:
"IT IS hard to know what to make of this view. Perhaps there is something to it. Perhaps the message of jihad is so strong that young Muslim men can be inspired to shoot pregnant women in office buildings after the notion of murder for Allah enters the transoms of their minds independently of other outside factors - through vapors or spontaneous generation perhaps."
This is unfortunate. In fact, this compromises an otherwise well stated article, if only the onus of the article were the absurdity of all owing anyone to go forward with revisionist history under the aegis of tolerance and equal time in an institute of higher learning - an argument that should be made until the practice of allowing these people time on college campuses is eradicated due simply to the basic tenets of human evolution. Like eradicating smallpox, because we can. However, in an effort to stay on message with the power of ideas, the JPost article briefly descends into powerful, xenophobic "transoms" of its own before bouncing back to the sensible need to call attention to what's happening on campus for the remainder of the article. In the context of a couple short sentences an entire sixth of the Earth's population is now being considered to be such pliable, witless sub-humans that their males have a Pavlovian response to ". ..the message of jihad [being] so strong that [they] can be inspired to shoot pregnant women in office buildings...". Instead of saying that the reference to shooting pregnant women is a reference to a deranged individual who appears to have nothing more to do with al-Qaeda than the Manson Family shooting pregnant women (or Charles Whitman or the kids at Columbine or American white power youth who are willing to shoot Jews if available, but can be equally "inspired" at a moment's notice to drag a black man from a pickup until he partially disintegrates), we are told that, "...[perhaps] the notion of murder for Allah enters the transoms of their minds independently of other outside factors - through vapors or spontaneous generation...".
And perhaps injuns can't drink and perhaps nigras can't be left alone with white women. Why such cavalier invective? This type of analytical thinking would seem to have come from the script of "Birth of a Nation." Again, unfortunate.
So should we consider that little children can be taught horrible things by their elders to the point where their chromosomes almost seem affected and there is no consciousness of humanity in carrying out terrorism? There's no need to consider that, as it is in fact legion throughout the Muslim world. But what of "the message of jihad being so strong" that some are intellectually powerless when the figurative wand of that Tinkerbell (in a burkha) taps he or she on the head? The Japanese once instilled this "noble" mindset into their fighting ranks, washing it down with sake and methamphetamine, and with some success. This isn't ancient history. Was it easier to regard the Japanese as yellow insects? Yes. Are Japanese people yellow insects? No. Is it easier to regard Muslims as having a predisposition to sub-human tendencies?
Is it good for Israel? Is it good for the US?
Well, it is hard to know what to make of this view, too. Perhaps it is good for Israel, depending upon what one's interpretation of what Israel is in the real world. Writing from the US, I only feel it acceptable - and just barely at that - to offer long-distance observations with regard to Israel, not pronouncements.
One observation: A few paragraphs later in the JPost article, the International Solidarity Movement is mentioned, it's sponsorship of "...weekly riots against the security fence in Bil'in and in Hebron, where its protesters throw rocks at IDF soldiers." If the past is any indication, this generally doesn't work out in the Palestinians' favor. Why should we expect anything different here if the emphasis on confrontation is thinly-veiled, if at all? Talking about appalling conditions in the world is not the same as appealing to revisionist history or encouraging the subjugation of independent thought in impressionable minds so that wanton violence makes sense, and allowing any fraction of this to transpire at the university level in a society claiming culture is reprehensible behavior. Since Hebron was mentioned, though, what of Baruch Goldstein's experience in Hebron, and the fact that it took an act of the Knesset to dismantle the shrines testifying to his martyr-like holiness? How in the world can that be good for Israel, glorifying that psychopath? Did he, too, succumb to "Sudden Jihad Syndrome?" Are those that condone like behavior other SJS candidates as well? Or are they just a bunch of assholes?
Though Ms Glick primarily (and correctly) states that the current levels of tolerance for hateful speech on college campuses are only aiding the enemies of the West, leaving an ancillary "maybe" out there with regard to the prospect of all Muslims falling under a murderous spell if the stars are aligned just right is counter intuitive to achieving results humanitarian, rather than militaristic. If one's posture is of bellicosity, then it could not be more intuitive to regard entire populations as incapable of being little more than savages. It produced a visceral reaction just reading the piece, knowing the potential energy in all humanity to do unconscionable things to one another once some justification has been acquired. A justification that excuses behavior on the grounds that others are less than human.
It seems as though once someone is beneath you, turned sub-human and compartmentalized in the recesses of your mind, a great many things become possible.
In closing, I wish to present three examples of perspective toward conflict resolution that should be considered:
(i) The Policy Exchange Executive Summary, from which the article's initial figures were extracted, has as its closing summation the following:
"We argue that the government has to change its policy approach towards Muslims. It should stop emphasizing difference and engage with Muslims as citizens, not through their religious identity. The 'Muslim community' is not homogeneous, and attempts to give group rights or representation will only alienate sections of the population further."
It goes on to make more sense, and can be read here after downloading the pdf:
http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/Publications.aspx?id=307
(ii) 60 Minutes aired a segment on March 4, 2007 on the power of the Internet in Islamic extremist circles. Like allowing the advocating of violence a forum on a college campus, these trends (actually, tactics) should be infiltrated and dismantled whenever possible:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/02/60minutes/main2531546.shtml
(iii) In the spirit of furthering the desire for conquest in the "battlefield of ideas," the following publication by Ayaan Hirsi Ali is the sort of writing that all children, Muslim and otherwise, should have as required reading:
http://www.aei.org/publications/filter.all,pubID.25318/pub_detail.asp
Finally, what are "we" (in the world) without relentless self-examination? I would submit that we are dangerously close to being no better than "they", if not already there in some respects. Perhaps an article telling us that the sky is falling is not the most responsible message. We (in the US) have had some propaganda-fueled terrorism experience, and before 9/11. It was courtesy of the Ku Klux Klan. Also, those affiliated with the Aryan Nation have done their part whenever possible to lower the quality of American life. Given our First and Second Amendment rights, the Tom Metzgers and David Dukes are allowed to speak repeatedly without imprisonment, and the Tim McVeighs and David Koreshs are allowed to amass weapons like some of us buy groceries. And while most in this country do fall in line with the "Eye for an Eye" mentality, indicting all white Christians as a means of eradicating the Klan probably won't fly. My conclusion is that indicting all Muslims isn't such a hot idea either. True change for the better would start with following the money, specifically on two fronts here in the US: the gun lobby and the Saudi Arabian lobby.
But that's another article, far more lengthy.
Copyright 2007-2008 Jexican Publishing. All Rights Reserved.
March 19, 2008
Dear Ms Glick:
Reading your columns from time to time, the fact that I might not always agree with your perspective is without fail trumped by consistently being more informed in the process. Your column yesterday, however, was particularly moving. Specifically, your conduct with respect to how you handled the speaking engagement in Dallas. It is because of yesterday's column that I have decided to send you a piece I wrote last year in response to another of your columns, one that was also quite affecting.
Your article "Jihad's Campus Collaborators" was sent my way by an uncle who had recently reviewed it with a former squadron mate soon after its initial publishing. A reply back to my uncle morphed into an article of its own, and is reprinted below. I took exception with the presentation that those cited by you that go on shooting sprees here in the US are possibly part of some larger, interwoven if undeclared community that has its foundations in triggers in the brain inherent once the Muslim faith has been internalized; that it may be as simple as viewing Islam as some serotonin reuptake inhibitor. While there is obvious truth that belief systems, once believed, can pave the way for an endless parade of abhorrent conduct, it's up to what's left of us in the sane community to arrest the problem as much as we are able, and a start might be acknowledging that a) people of all flavors just snap sometimes, and b) in this country they have remarkably easy access to firearms.
I would have had nothing to write if the "message of jihad being so strong" cited in your article was then followed with any of the countless examples available throughout the Middle East on a daily basis. To notate this potential energy here in the US, however, becoming possibly kinetic once "Sudden Jihad Syndrome" ensues, is lacking if we ignore the prevalence of automatic and semi-automatic weapons as extreme potential energy itself. As an example, the piece I'm sending your way was written about a month before the Virginia Tech shootings. I don't think it's a stretch to say that the headlines would have been slightly different if that unstable Korean kid was instead named Mohammad. Whether in shopping malls or institutes of learning, examples of males going meshuga with firearms are being replenished monthly, and with religion generally having nothing to do with it (here). What is noticeably absent from the reporting is the immunity provided gun makers, an immunity signed into law in 2005.
The following is a bit critical, and perhaps our similarities end somewhere between us both being born to Jewish parents here some four decades ago and only one of us making aliyah sometime after. I hope not.
I thank you in advance for your time.
The Transoms of Our Minds
March 11, 2007
It would seem to be the most obvious of logic, even in an often highly illogical world: If Johns Hopkins wouldn't regularly provide a forum for Christian Scientists, or if the Army Corps of Engineers would decline consultation from the Flat Earth Society, why would any self-respecting college president allow a microphone in the hand of a Holocaust denier? And yet, as Caroline Glick's recent piece in the Jerusalem Post amply reminds us ("Jihad's Campus Collaborators"), this form of "tolerance" for divergent beliefs is, more and more, an acceptable attitude with those at the university level. Educated people are permitting its proliferation, and calling attention to this sad fact cannot be understated. But what of the way we shine light on this growing trend, with the obvious objective being one of eradication?
As a recurrent theme in the article, the "battlefield of ideas" is of utmost importance; to be sure, it's perhaps the most important. Could we improve upon the way Ms Glick has presented our collective (read: any and all sane individuals') viewpoint - our "battlefield" in this global matter? I think so. I think the transition used from not investigating the seeds for potential terrorist acts germinating in the UK Muslim community to the tragedy of US college campuses allowing time for revisionist speakers by way of citing the individuals in the manner chosen for the article was a poor segue. So much so, in fact, that the age-old question popped into my head while assessing her choice of words: Is it good for Israel? Is it good for the Jews? There are ideas sewn into the tenor of the article that should be examined with this in mind.
Let's start from the introduction of US home-grown terror prospects.
Adding Sulejman Talovic to the list of those bent on doing Allah's bidding seems to be a stretch at best. An examination of both spree killings and planned assaults by crazed gunmen in the US, while containing obvious anti-Semitic behavior in some cases, has only one truly common thread in all these personal "jihads," namely: easy access to high-powered weapons. Including unstable individuals such as Naveed Afzal Haq, who along with Derrick Shareef and Sulejman Talovic are the names listed as groundwork for exploring the possible existence of "Sudden Jihad Syndrome," strikes me as an argument already setting out on loose footing unless a sympathetic target audience is expected. This is not to say Shareef's assertions of what he was willing to do on Allah's behalf should be discounted (although that's all he appears to have done on Allah's behalf), but that claiming, "As was the case with Talovic and with Naveed Afzal Haq, who murdered one woman and wounded five during hi s shooting rampage at the Seattle Jewish Federation last July, the media and federal authorities have hushed up and failed to investigate the jihadist motives..." is redirecting around the simple fact that these were angry, unstable humans with firearms, and by all accounts, not crossing off any checklist on the way to a few dozen virgins in the way so many malleable psyches in the Muslim world continue to accept as legitimate. If only requiring a surname's association as grounds for a symptom, the inclusion of Beltway sniper John Muhammad would appear to follow suit. Or, if religion is to be held blindly responsible for unconscionable acts, perhaps we should consider whom Jesus would bomb (in Northern Ireland).
Indeed, if we are able to open up our comprehension of the word "jihad" and consider this a Muslim description for aspects of the human condition, such as types of struggle in the eye of the beholder, or analogous to the almost unimaginable horrors wreaked upon women and children under the useful umbrella of the word "crusade," then an honest argument becomes possible. (Full disclosure: I'm one that considers both The Crusades and any rationale for jihad incontrovertible proof that religion just poisons the human skull, in the process excusing great swathes of corpses left in its wake.) The JPost article appears to sidestep this high road altogether, but in a refined manner that borders on sleight of hand. Again, taking factual data from the Policy Exchange report (though implying something quite different from the conclusion of the PE report's executive summary), then using examples that do not at all appear consistent with indoctrinated, brainwashed mentality from some far away madras: using two examples of males who simply snapped - one looking for Jews and one in Utah - and including another male who merely ran his mouth, all before deftly introducing the concept of "Sudden Jihad Syndrome," as a suggestion thrown into the fray as a possible means of an explanation.
Here the article makes a right-angle turn that should be reconsidered: in the space of just three short paragraphs, it explains the facility with which law enforcement might use this syndrome as a case closer to avoid cumbersome investigative work, and by the third paragraph has decreed the obvious place for such "...serious empirical study" is at the university level. Perfectly rationale assertions. It's the paragraph between that is a bit of a deal breaker:
"IT IS hard to know what to make of this view. Perhaps there is something to it. Perhaps the message of jihad is so strong that young Muslim men can be inspired to shoot pregnant women in office buildings after the notion of murder for Allah enters the transoms of their minds independently of other outside factors - through vapors or spontaneous generation perhaps."
This is unfortunate. In fact, this compromises an otherwise well stated article, if only the onus of the article were the absurdity of all owing anyone to go forward with revisionist history under the aegis of tolerance and equal time in an institute of higher learning - an argument that should be made until the practice of allowing these people time on college campuses is eradicated due simply to the basic tenets of human evolution. Like eradicating smallpox, because we can. However, in an effort to stay on message with the power of ideas, the JPost article briefly descends into powerful, xenophobic "transoms" of its own before bouncing back to the sensible need to call attention to what's happening on campus for the remainder of the article. In the context of a couple short sentences an entire sixth of the Earth's population is now being considered to be such pliable, witless sub-humans that their males have a Pavlovian response to ". ..the message of jihad [being] so strong that [they] can be inspired to shoot pregnant women in office buildings...". Instead of saying that the reference to shooting pregnant women is a reference to a deranged individual who appears to have nothing more to do with al-Qaeda than the Manson Family shooting pregnant women (or Charles Whitman or the kids at Columbine or American white power youth who are willing to shoot Jews if available, but can be equally "inspired" at a moment's notice to drag a black man from a pickup until he partially disintegrates), we are told that, "...[perhaps] the notion of murder for Allah enters the transoms of their minds independently of other outside factors - through vapors or spontaneous generation...".
And perhaps injuns can't drink and perhaps nigras can't be left alone with white women. Why such cavalier invective? This type of analytical thinking would seem to have come from the script of "Birth of a Nation." Again, unfortunate.
So should we consider that little children can be taught horrible things by their elders to the point where their chromosomes almost seem affected and there is no consciousness of humanity in carrying out terrorism? There's no need to consider that, as it is in fact legion throughout the Muslim world. But what of "the message of jihad being so strong" that some are intellectually powerless when the figurative wand of that Tinkerbell (in a burkha) taps he or she on the head? The Japanese once instilled this "noble" mindset into their fighting ranks, washing it down with sake and methamphetamine, and with some success. This isn't ancient history. Was it easier to regard the Japanese as yellow insects? Yes. Are Japanese people yellow insects? No. Is it easier to regard Muslims as having a predisposition to sub-human tendencies?
Is it good for Israel? Is it good for the US?
Well, it is hard to know what to make of this view, too. Perhaps it is good for Israel, depending upon what one's interpretation of what Israel is in the real world. Writing from the US, I only feel it acceptable - and just barely at that - to offer long-distance observations with regard to Israel, not pronouncements.
One observation: A few paragraphs later in the JPost article, the International Solidarity Movement is mentioned, it's sponsorship of "...weekly riots against the security fence in Bil'in and in Hebron, where its protesters throw rocks at IDF soldiers." If the past is any indication, this generally doesn't work out in the Palestinians' favor. Why should we expect anything different here if the emphasis on confrontation is thinly-veiled, if at all? Talking about appalling conditions in the world is not the same as appealing to revisionist history or encouraging the subjugation of independent thought in impressionable minds so that wanton violence makes sense, and allowing any fraction of this to transpire at the university level in a society claiming culture is reprehensible behavior. Since Hebron was mentioned, though, what of Baruch Goldstein's experience in Hebron, and the fact that it took an act of the Knesset to dismantle the shrines testifying to his martyr-like holiness? How in the world can that be good for Israel, glorifying that psychopath? Did he, too, succumb to "Sudden Jihad Syndrome?" Are those that condone like behavior other SJS candidates as well? Or are they just a bunch of assholes?
Though Ms Glick primarily (and correctly) states that the current levels of tolerance for hateful speech on college campuses are only aiding the enemies of the West, leaving an ancillary "maybe" out there with regard to the prospect of all Muslims falling under a murderous spell if the stars are aligned just right is counter intuitive to achieving results humanitarian, rather than militaristic. If one's posture is of bellicosity, then it could not be more intuitive to regard entire populations as incapable of being little more than savages. It produced a visceral reaction just reading the piece, knowing the potential energy in all humanity to do unconscionable things to one another once some justification has been acquired. A justification that excuses behavior on the grounds that others are less than human.
It seems as though once someone is beneath you, turned sub-human and compartmentalized in the recesses of your mind, a great many things become possible.
In closing, I wish to present three examples of perspective toward conflict resolution that should be considered:
(i) The Policy Exchange Executive Summary, from which the article's initial figures were extracted, has as its closing summation the following:
"We argue that the government has to change its policy approach towards Muslims. It should stop emphasizing difference and engage with Muslims as citizens, not through their religious identity. The 'Muslim community' is not homogeneous, and attempts to give group rights or representation will only alienate sections of the population further."
It goes on to make more sense, and can be read here after downloading the pdf:
http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/Publications.aspx?id=307
(ii) 60 Minutes aired a segment on March 4, 2007 on the power of the Internet in Islamic extremist circles. Like allowing the advocating of violence a forum on a college campus, these trends (actually, tactics) should be infiltrated and dismantled whenever possible:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/02/60minutes/main2531546.shtml
(iii) In the spirit of furthering the desire for conquest in the "battlefield of ideas," the following publication by Ayaan Hirsi Ali is the sort of writing that all children, Muslim and otherwise, should have as required reading:
http://www.aei.org/publications/filter.all,pubID.25318/pub_detail.asp
Finally, what are "we" (in the world) without relentless self-examination? I would submit that we are dangerously close to being no better than "they", if not already there in some respects. Perhaps an article telling us that the sky is falling is not the most responsible message. We (in the US) have had some propaganda-fueled terrorism experience, and before 9/11. It was courtesy of the Ku Klux Klan. Also, those affiliated with the Aryan Nation have done their part whenever possible to lower the quality of American life. Given our First and Second Amendment rights, the Tom Metzgers and David Dukes are allowed to speak repeatedly without imprisonment, and the Tim McVeighs and David Koreshs are allowed to amass weapons like some of us buy groceries. And while most in this country do fall in line with the "Eye for an Eye" mentality, indicting all white Christians as a means of eradicating the Klan probably won't fly. My conclusion is that indicting all Muslims isn't such a hot idea either. True change for the better would start with following the money, specifically on two fronts here in the US: the gun lobby and the Saudi Arabian lobby.
But that's another article, far more lengthy.
Copyright 2007-2008 Jexican Publishing. All Rights Reserved.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
