Donald Rumsfeld comes clean (nearly) on the Daily Show

This link above will take you to Canada's "Comedy Network" page for Jon Stewart's Daily Show uncut, uncensored interview with Donald Rumsfeld.
If for some reason you are unable to view, please take the time to find your own link to watch the show.
The episode aired Feb 23, 2011

The following will be my own comments on what I feel was a remarkable interview. I love Jon Stewart, I'm not convinced he's entirely real, but he does manage to get important guests, and grill them, nearly to my satisfaction. Rummy was his usual black-eyed, stoney self. He was slightly less coy than usual. He always has a slight smile. He has every reason to. Some people in positions of power get to see the man behind the curtain, Rummy knows them all.

Rumsfeld, who has been in the whitehouse, off and on, since Nixon, is one of the star players of the new world order and we should all be particularly happy when he is capable of stating anything. Anyone who knows Rummy, or has listened to him speak, (which should be all of us,) knows him to be the King of Filibuster. So when he makes the following statements in the interview, it becomes clear why I have chosen to comment and how the interview gains its importance:

-There was very little attaching Al Qaeda to Saddam Hussein.
-It is fair to say that convincing Americans to go into Iraq was both a harder sell than going into Afghanistan, as well as where the bulk of the administration's efforts were focused.
-We were wrong about the intelligence that lead us to war.
-We failed. 

These sentences are paraphrazed, but you get the gist of the tone of the discussion. Jon tries so hard to be diplomatic about what he's saying, but ultimately he has to come out and ask it, "You are the authors and owners of this war and shouldn't you be held accountable?"

The thing is, Rummy doesn't disagree. I mean, he tries to disagree, and uses several diversions, but ultimately, careful semantics break him down.

Saying that the word "sell" was too strong a word to use when describing the intentionality of the Bush admin. meant only that "convince" was good enough. The first prong in Stewart's attack took some minor adjusting by the semantic deceptor, but ultimately he admits that there was purposeful momentum created for Iraq. He did not agree with Jon's definition of said authors of such momentum needing to be held accountable for such actions... He will only argue that "Saddam was bad" or that "America hasn't had an attack in ten years."

The next, quite interesting angle taken by Jon was something I was going to write up anyway, in terms of the current Libyan crisis. I was going to persue something along the lines of, "Did everybody get fucking amnesia?" Gaddafi was a crazy dictator 30 years ago, he's still there now. The only thing that has changed is our attitudes about people like him. When he has our oil, we put up with him. Hell, we'll even let him kill a jet full of people. You know what, forget even that, we'll go as far as to let you have the terrorist behind it back, a national hero. Enjoy your right to terrorize, you crazy kook, come to the G20!


Oh, sorry. Human moment....

Jon persued it with his usual diplomatic candor. I think that perhaps we all feel like, there were 19 highjackers, none of them from Iraq. Why are they not the targets of your intentions? Why didn't we move on Pakistan, Sudan, Saudia Arabia?

He even brought up the Project for a New American Century. Jon did everything he could to be blatant about the direction and desire of the administration being known by the public, admonishing it. "There is no reason at all for us to be in Iraq and we are made no safer by the war there."

Of course Rumsfeld disagrees. Yet it seems to me, he does so half heartedly. It almost feels to me as if he wants to come clean, but in his heart of hearts, actually cares about the monsters he protects.

Fiction

Yes, I also write fiction.
I have recently been able to publish two of my short stories.

"Disembarkation" is based on a true story that happened to me as a teenager in Beaver Creek Yukon.

"Demarcation" is a futuristic science fiction tale, complete with conspiracy, that happens to take place in the same town.

Enjoy.

Click here

21st Century Enlightenment and the RSA

I've only recently discovered the RSA. 

(quote from wikipedia)

"The Royal Society for the encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce (RSA) is a British multi-disciplinary institution, based in London. The name Royal Society of Arts is frequently used for brevity (and on the building's frieze The Royal Society of Arts - see photo). It was founded in 1754 and was granted a Royal Charter in 1847. Notable members have included Benjamin Franklin, Karl Marx, Adam Smith, William Hogarth, John Diefenbaker, Stephen Hawking and Charles Dickens.

Its founding charter expressed the purpose of the society as being to "embolden enterprise, enlarge science, refine art, improve our manufactures and extend our commerce", but also of the need to alleviate poverty and secure full employment."

Matthew Taylor, former advisor to PM Blair, long time Labour Politician, published the RSA's new tagline, (read: manifesto,) which despite having interests disparate to mine, is quite similar in its make-up. What I mean to say by this is, we agree on much of what causes the world's problems and some of how it manifests, but have very little in common in the arena of possible solutions. 

The 21st Century Enlightenment, simply put, is the realization that our status quo can be misaligned with our best interests. However, it seems that groups such that seek to examine possible future solutions to the undeniable problems humanity faces, such as the RSA or the Rockefeller Foundation, only come up with a continuance of the system that brought us to where we are. The RSA also limits itself within humanist boundaries, which of course, assignee's prerogative does not.

Despite our differences, this short, 11 minute film is brilliant and everyone should see it. 

There remains a consistant hope for our best thinking, still to come...

To read Matthew Taylor's 21st Century Enlightenment click here 

To read the Rockefeller and Global Business Report:

Scenarios for the Future of Technology and International Development click here

Problems with Patriotism

I live in a beautiful country, Canada.  I was born in another beautiful country, America and I have travelled to another beautiful country, Mexico. I hope to see many other beautiful countries as I travel our beautiful world. I understand that beauty is in the eye of the beholder and someone who grew up staring at a desert all their lives might find my favourite Rocky Mountain forests a little claustrophobic. For them, the desert is beautiful and rightly so.

Sometimes people refer to other people in generalizations, these things happen. I have heard from tourists and travellers, that Canadians are polite versions of Americans. This may or may not be true, but I contend that it is not our “being Canadian” that produces what politeness we have, but rather the other way around. If Canadians are polite, it is not because they are Canadian but rather because they are a product of living in Canada. Perhaps we have a slower pace, more relaxed attitude, lower populations, lower stress levels, etc. Perhaps it is these things that lead to our politeness. At any rate, we could make up some other name for a citizen of Canada, say a “Canuck,” and we could erase the border between the US and Canada. Now the US goes from Florida to Alaska and in the northern part, there's a bunch of Canucks living. Our nationhood has changed, we're still polite. If erasing the border seems too harsh, just move it further north. Now everyone south of Edmonton lives in America. Are you going to become less polite now, if you live in Vancouver?

Nationhood is not the same as culture. There are many varied cultures within the nation of Canada. Nationhood is the societal equivalent of an individual's desire to express himself, which happens within the definition of culture as well, but where culture can offer us so many things, nationhood offers us only one. Culture is the common expressions of a group. If you take an American from Washington state and a Canadian from Alberta, separated by only a few miles and introduce them to a German, he's not going to be able to tell the difference, by looks, by dress, by accent, by mannerisms, etc. Without an in-depth interview the German may never know the difference. However, if you took an American from Vermont and a Canadienne from Quebec, anyone would be able to point out differences. All of these differences would be cultural, none of them would be national. So what is nationhood? My dictionary defines it as a group having similar descent, culture and language, but this obviously doesn't work, even from within my own country. Granted, there are nations for whom this definition works better, France is full of French people, Sweden's full of Swedes... French culture and Swedish culture are quite different. However, in older countries, such as those in Europe, smaller countries with close neighbours, over the years these people have learned to get along. Of course they fought, establishing the borders they protect and cherish, but now, for the most part, there is no nation fighting any other. They remain distinct, in their cultures, they remain defined by their nations and they remain contained by their borders.

George Carlin, one of my favourite philosophers, has a bit in his comedy routine where he explains his confusion about national pride. Pride, he says, is reserved for something we have done, an achievement. One cannot feel pride for being born Irish, that was just the luck of the draw, you might have been born Scottish. Be happy to be Irish, or Scottish, or whatever. Save pride for something you had something to do with. If, like an individual, a Nation seeks to express its distinctiveness, it is welcome to, encouraged to and expected to, from within its borders. It is when that distinctiveness is disseminated outside the nation that problems can arise. Such as demonstrated by any war you care to mention as well as certain current political, economic or social philosophies actively exemplify. When the individual (or perhaps even, small group,) takes the idea and turns it into action, they express something. When a nation takes an idea and turns it into action, that nation insists on something.

Perhaps, as I am the son of two nations, with an American Mother and Canadian Father, I am particularly well suited to speak to this concern. It seems to me that nationhood matters little, if at all. It isn't national pride that turns us into soldiers or football hooligans, it is just a front for other emotions that need to be expressed, or some action for which we feel we must reciprocate. There is a mean to be achieved in this intentional sphere. An excess of “sense of nationhood, I presume, is called nationalism. For some, this is not an excess, we are to be patriotic, lest we be traitors. Nationalism, really is just Patriotism, they are the same thing because you are a patriot of a Nation. We give our countries the powers they have over us in the same way we react to the news, advertising or any other socially engineered programme. Sometimes the things that patriots brag about making their countries “great” are really the things that distinguish so-called first world and third-world nations. All this does is prove that patriots are proud of their fortune. However, if they are correct and live virtuously, they may lay claim to their nationalism as being eudaemonic. I'm not saying being patriotic is wrong, I'm saying doing anything without it being promotive is wrong. There are certainly armies full of patriots, now and in the past, running around the globe ruining peoples lives.

So why are we patriotic? Why does nationhood matter? I think if you reduce the question far enough, you can come to an answer. We must get past mere opinions about the beauty of the land, past our confusing “nationhood” with “culture.” There are too many cultures in my nation for this to be of any use in our definition, not to mention multitudes of subcultures. I can be a Muslim (culture) African (culture) raised in France (culture) living in Canada (nation and culture.) Then, if I am an eighteen year old ballet dancer, how are “ballet culture” and “youth culture” going to figure into this equation? Culture must be removed from nationalism for this to work. So if I am patriotic, if nationhood matters to me, it must be because of some general idea about the overall quality of life I experience. The possible subsets of opinions are too great to narrow down. Let us ask, what is it that all patriots share? A love of their collective identity. Well, racists share that too, again, it's a cultural thing. Is it possible to have an identity based upon the mere geographical placement on the Earth? Only if your nation and culture are synonymous, which does occur. However, when this is the case, it is culture determining those things that we are patriotic about. It is these things that matter more than the traits we share with other nations. This is a measurement of ingroup, the idea of defending it is an appeal to authority and the idea that it is right, righteous, or God given is an appeal to sanctity. These concerns were dumped by me when I reduced the number of cardinal virtues to three, Harm/Care, Justice/Fairness and Prudence. If I ask myself to consider the virtue of being a Canadian from within only these concerns and while leaving culture out of it, I am left with meaningless x and y positions on a map.

I think, in the end, nationhood, having a mean and being causally self-referential, is of little value, but I do cheer on Team Canada every four years during the winter Olympics. I think this is the domain of patriotism, on ice, as in: very slippery. You have to be careful. I love where I live, I'm happy to be here, but I'm not particularly proud to be Canadian, or American for that matter. In fact, I'm ashamed because we could be doing so much more than we are. In fact, in a lot of ways, we're the bad guys. We're greedy and spoiled. 

So, what are you proud of?

Egypt & the 21st Century Enlightenment

Many would argue that Egypt is the birthplace of civilization. We know that different civilizations have popped up at different times, in places far and wide. Yet it certainly can and should be said, that of all these other civilizations, none were born with such grandeur or majesty. The monuments and museums full of antiquities attest to the staying power of such worthy beginnings, or perhaps I should say, used to attest to. For as I write these words, the Cairo museum of antiquities burns.

I think it's is likely that the museum will survive the molotov cocktails that clashing pro and anti-Mubarak protesters toss at each other. In the next few days, maybe we will even have some sort of change occur in Egypt, there is promise of good things, for it seems that it's what the people want. (We will presume the people are correct and the story, as we are told it, corresponds with the truth.) For me, the drama unfolding is of a valid nature, as is my desire to examine it, I also have a more selfish concern. I was spurred to make this comment because of a Cairene woman quoted by a reporter on the scene, “I have a nineteen year-old son. I don't blame him for protesting. This is my generation's fault. We have let corruption rule for thirty years because to change it would cause instability.”

This human tendency is something that is addressed in Anti-Social Engineering the Hyper-Manipulated Self. We suspend our moral objections, we confuse our intentions, this is the semantic deception of dialectical theses exemplifying the rampant ineptitude of modernity. The status quo trumps change if said change is deemed “difficult” to achieve. To put it another way, citizens look to their leaders to lead, but when the leaders are prone to fulfill their own, often personal and corrupt agendas, we say “Oh well, what are you gonna do?” Then we get back to slogging away at whatever it is we do to survive, continuing to provide to a system that supplies to its own demands. (Whether or not we share those demands.)

There are many questions to be asked here. My favourites are akin to the subliminal rumblings that only dare to have periscopes break the surface in the paranoid conspiratorial circles where someone as liberal as I am becomes conservative. Is this the beginning of some form of governmental accountability, as was predicted by myself, on this very site, for 2011? Is this the first domino in a new modern Enlightenment of human possibilities? Will the power of the people prevail? Is this all a trick?

Of all the possible questions, one sticks out more than others. Given the despotic nature of Mubarak's thirty year rein over Egypt, and having removed any consideration of heavy-handed methodologies, what are we left with? Simply put, a totalitarian aristocracy of military might, doing what it wants, despite the intentions of its people or its peers. How is this any different than America, Canada, Britain, Russia, China, numerous South American countries, in fact, almost any nation you'd care to mention?

There are only quasi-democracies.

The problem isn't one of government or the practice of rule. The problem is in supplying to human needs of a population. The necessary corrections are not going to be achieved by switching one leader or one party for another. We still must all work from within a system that is unfair. Power, greed and corruptibility are the hallmarks of our problems, but to think that changing the players in the game will make us winners is faulty. The game is rigged.

There are only two solutions to this problem. Change the game or stop the game.

The players are irrelevant.

Realizing this and developing solutions define the 21^st Century Enlightenment.