[edit]I always regret making long posts, because I find more and more that I'm just writing them for myself. Uh, but that's not bad either, I guess.[/edit]
I've been reading "The Once and Future King" by T.H. White. You may know him as the author of "The Sword and the Stone" which inspired the Disney movie of the same name. "The Once and Future King" is basically "The Sword and the Stone" with the rest of the story of King Arthur appearing in the final two books. There's a lot of ethical argument in the book and talk about the idiosyncrasies of war and those who are allowed to declare them - and it ran very parallel to the current situation between the U.S. and overseas powers. Here're some quick thoughts:
1. Merlin explains that there is never an excuse to start a war - only to defend yourself in a war that's already been started. It all depends on who makes the first blow.
Now, this could work for or against the U.S. - if we think of it as though we're fighting solely on the side of the Iraqi people, against whom the Iraqi government has already struck the first blow, then we may be justified in this war. Unfortunately, according to the U.S. government, that's not the case. True, it's one reason, but their other reason really confuses the issue and weakens the overall argument: the U.S. also claims that they have "weapons of mass destruction" (WMDs) and threaten the American way of life.
For starters, they haven't wronged us. The U.S's point is "they haven't wronged us YET" - but that's no justification. If we attacked any nation that was capable of challenging the United States, we'd basically attempt to reduce every developed nation to a Third World Country. No, this is a war against Iraq, not against a threat.
The more and more I hear about the war, the less I'm capable of telling you what it's all about. It's starting to get worse than explaining the causes of the Civil War. At least then you can say "Slavery" and feel somewhat comfortable with your answer.
2. Merlin mentions to a young Arthur that the common soldiers die while the leaders and knights go safely and unscuffed. The soldiers pay with their lives, but for the leaders, it's sport. War makes life interesting to them, and it's among them that the wars are fought - though they shed no blood themselves. It would take another one of their ilk to change things.
This makes me think about actors and the rich protesting the war, with people saying "They don't know what it's like to be touched by war" or "They're not capable of making serious judgements about the war". Actors are pretty much at the same level of wealth and influence as politicians are. As far as social strata are concerned, they're basically at the same level. They're very wealthy, they have influence over wealthy circles, and they're all constantly under the public's scrutiny. Actors become politicians... heh, even president. If you have an actor that knows a lot about world events and legal matters, then in terms of their basic abilities and qualities, they're practically identical to politicians (Except more attractive, I'd bet).
I came across this this morning: http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0416-01.htm
It's a transcript of a very good speech that actor Tim Robbins gave mid-April. Tim Robbins of course is an actor famous for dozens of movies, the least of which is not "The Shawshank Redemption." He points out lots of gross scenarios in America being played out by its teachers and citizens, and whether or not his particular stories are true, most people who keep up with local interest stories have probably read about such scenarios played out all too often recently. Here's on particular one that bothered me deeply recently, also because it happened right here in the Bay:
http://www.kron.com/Global/story.asp?s=%20%201268949
And musicians, our wealthy poets, have always had great things to say. I look at reports like this:
http://www.awolbush.com/whoserved.html
and think about songs like "Fortunate Son" by CCR. This country has a lot of great doers in power, unfortunately they're all doers who ignore the thinkers. Most people are used to thinking of Republicans as the rich kids who don't ever really have to DO anything (except maybe work their ways to the top f soulless power ladders). We think this because it's partially true (though it's not untrue of professional democrats either). I'm not so bold as to say Republicans are the problem with this country - because we need Republicans... but they certainly have a lot to do with what's going on/wrong right now.
There are more parallels that I remembered when I first started writing this, but seeing as how I don't have the book with me at the moment (and this is running long as it is) I'll save that all for later.
Am I wrong? I always appreciate criticism, because honestly, I don't know as much about foreign policy as I would like - I'm concerned more with the basic ethical issues involved. So tell me what you think.
I've been reading "The Once and Future King" by T.H. White. You may know him as the author of "The Sword and the Stone" which inspired the Disney movie of the same name. "The Once and Future King" is basically "The Sword and the Stone" with the rest of the story of King Arthur appearing in the final two books. There's a lot of ethical argument in the book and talk about the idiosyncrasies of war and those who are allowed to declare them - and it ran very parallel to the current situation between the U.S. and overseas powers. Here're some quick thoughts:
1. Merlin explains that there is never an excuse to start a war - only to defend yourself in a war that's already been started. It all depends on who makes the first blow.
Now, this could work for or against the U.S. - if we think of it as though we're fighting solely on the side of the Iraqi people, against whom the Iraqi government has already struck the first blow, then we may be justified in this war. Unfortunately, according to the U.S. government, that's not the case. True, it's one reason, but their other reason really confuses the issue and weakens the overall argument: the U.S. also claims that they have "weapons of mass destruction" (WMDs) and threaten the American way of life.
For starters, they haven't wronged us. The U.S's point is "they haven't wronged us YET" - but that's no justification. If we attacked any nation that was capable of challenging the United States, we'd basically attempt to reduce every developed nation to a Third World Country. No, this is a war against Iraq, not against a threat.
The more and more I hear about the war, the less I'm capable of telling you what it's all about. It's starting to get worse than explaining the causes of the Civil War. At least then you can say "Slavery" and feel somewhat comfortable with your answer.
2. Merlin mentions to a young Arthur that the common soldiers die while the leaders and knights go safely and unscuffed. The soldiers pay with their lives, but for the leaders, it's sport. War makes life interesting to them, and it's among them that the wars are fought - though they shed no blood themselves. It would take another one of their ilk to change things.
This makes me think about actors and the rich protesting the war, with people saying "They don't know what it's like to be touched by war" or "They're not capable of making serious judgements about the war". Actors are pretty much at the same level of wealth and influence as politicians are. As far as social strata are concerned, they're basically at the same level. They're very wealthy, they have influence over wealthy circles, and they're all constantly under the public's scrutiny. Actors become politicians... heh, even president. If you have an actor that knows a lot about world events and legal matters, then in terms of their basic abilities and qualities, they're practically identical to politicians (Except more attractive, I'd bet).
I came across this this morning: http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0416-01.htm
It's a transcript of a very good speech that actor Tim Robbins gave mid-April. Tim Robbins of course is an actor famous for dozens of movies, the least of which is not "The Shawshank Redemption." He points out lots of gross scenarios in America being played out by its teachers and citizens, and whether or not his particular stories are true, most people who keep up with local interest stories have probably read about such scenarios played out all too often recently. Here's on particular one that bothered me deeply recently, also because it happened right here in the Bay:
http://www.kron.com/Global/story.asp?s=%20%201268949
And musicians, our wealthy poets, have always had great things to say. I look at reports like this:
http://www.awolbush.com/whoserved.html
and think about songs like "Fortunate Son" by CCR. This country has a lot of great doers in power, unfortunately they're all doers who ignore the thinkers. Most people are used to thinking of Republicans as the rich kids who don't ever really have to DO anything (except maybe work their ways to the top f soulless power ladders). We think this because it's partially true (though it's not untrue of professional democrats either). I'm not so bold as to say Republicans are the problem with this country - because we need Republicans... but they certainly have a lot to do with what's going on/wrong right now.
There are more parallels that I remembered when I first started writing this, but seeing as how I don't have the book with me at the moment (and this is running long as it is) I'll save that all for later.
Am I wrong? I always appreciate criticism, because honestly, I don't know as much about foreign policy as I would like - I'm concerned more with the basic ethical issues involved. So tell me what you think.
VIEW 3 of 3 COMMENTS
i loved spinal tap, one of my favorite movies... but i thought best in show was a mediocre movie... so i think it has a 50/50 shot.
i never leave the toilet seat up. really. It annoys me when people don't close it all the way.