human being on Sat, 10 Jan 2004 02:54:32 +0100 (CET) |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
<nettime> Era of Self-Deception II/II |
Mr. David Brooks, There is a need to write once again regarding your article in the New York Times, which is in today's local newspaper: entitled: The Era of Distortion http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/06/opinion/06BROO.html Since you did not or were unable to respond to my previous invitation to debate your ideas in a public forum, online, I find it untenable to leave things where they are: in fact, it is very irresponsible and unethical, given the tone of the piece, and its running in a major newspaper network with such damaging consequences to civility, foregoing reason and tolerance, instead to inflame a very delicate balance for no obvious purpose other than to make an accusation that those who are not with you, or neoconversatives, are anti-Semitic in some conspiratorial belief. Because there is no actual reasoning for these accusations, it is dependent upon those who are to reply, to decide how to address this type of thinking, which in a world of either 'you are with us or against us' mentality, instantly can polarize a situation-- enough so to skew the actual issues into one of Middle-East politics substituting for an American political debate. That is, to align the GOP with Jewish heritage, and those who hate this, apparently, because they question the neoconservative movement and its grip on policy. Just writing about such a thing is a flashpoint, and it is hard to justify or reason in some common perspective when the equivalent of an ideological dirty bomb is set off, for no other apparent reason than some pressure to account for decisions made to date. The image that comes to mind is that of some movie character in one of the Governor of California's movie's, it may have been, where someone is going through some checkpoint, an android who looks like a human being and their head explodes. Likewise, intellectual self- deception of such a degree that one's mentality is infected or affected by such a self-destructive and culturally destructive narrowing of ideas into a warped view of things is quite serious, incredibly scary for what it portends will pass for news and opinion-editorials of a quality that has a redeeming value, based in shared reality. Instead, days after reading your piece its fallout is still all over, and it is hard to escape what the consequences from this will be... a continual and rapid decline into an irrational use of power and force of more ideological falsities replacing what used to be valued as a free and fair press. It would be very easy to take the position that you are entirely wrong in your perspective, and many are doing that-- because it is so insulting as to defy a more complex understanding and truly, does not deserve serious rebuttal, and an attempt at this is made only because of what damage your writing has done to civil discourse, it needs to be addressed, or will eat away at the fragile fabric holding things in a peaceful state here in the 'homeland', that brand of flag you may be wearing on your suit, representing some idea that is presumed to be the .US that is shared. Instead, I would argue, it is a privatized world view that is represented by that little lapel pin, red-white-blue and bronze .US flag, just as with your argument. So this is going to meet you half-way. You have asked for such a response so it is attempted to offer a reason for your position, to move towards a reasonable center rather than to further narrow your position. So, if we are to relate... The particular issue which you attempt to discredit is, indeed, a legitimate concern of people who care both about .US policies, and Israel's continuing stability, (in addition to Palestinians, yet this will not be discussed). Therefore, if this can be assumed that, with due respect to the sovereignty of Israel to self-determine its own future, and therefore the internal politics of Israel are off-limits to a .US citizen, except through governments relationships, and dual-citizenships, that in a world with the international organizational structure of the United Nations, that this is a way to address such grievances between peoples of these two places, surely, though itself the .UN is not actually democratically representative of the people but instead the bureaucracies in which ambassadors are dispatched to. At least, this is a naive and rough sketch of an approximation of how the .US and Israel may relate with regard to the issue of sovereignty. Okay. In your article you state the following: "Theories about the tightly knit neocon cabal came in waves. One day you read that neocons were pushing plans to finish off Iraq and move into Syria. Web sites appeared detailing neocon conspiracies; my favorite described a neocon outing organized by Dick Cheney to hunt for humans. The Asian press had the most lurid stories; the European press the most thorough. Every day, it seemed, Le Monde or some deep-thinking German paper would have an exposé on the neocon cabal, complete with charts connecting all the conspirators." The reason the role of Israel's Prime Minister Sharon and Likud-like politics in the .US is mentioned is because of your reference in which you equate 'pushing plans' of NeoCon design, which is a fact though you have the LexisNexis access so I assume you can get the best documents related to this news. Of these issues of the War in Iraq, there is an issue of not knowing fully of such plans and the first mention I myself as a .US citizen had of the .US battle plans and the order of battle were, actually, voiced by Mr. Sharon during the building and battle to the war in Iraq. In no ambiguous terms the Prime Minister of another country, of a right-wing government of the Likud party, which apparently has a supporters inside the current administration of the .US, represented by President Bush. This may or may not be unusual, I do not know the extent to which these things are normal, except for what the news shares about such things. And, the news which is, again, likely accessible in LexisNexis (it was difficult to find sources in Googlenews, so I do not have any URLs though this is incontestable as part of the media record). Maybe this is all normal, yet from the media age to listen to a Prime Minister of another country saying what the .US is about to be doing next, as foreign policy is, it is hoped, of concern when the .US government was in a mode of opaque information secrecy in all reasoning for its motives, which I believe is much more complex and yet could not be reasoned given where language is at, and thus there is a boundary to what is able to be communicated about this situation-- it is possible that, if sovereignty and peaceful transition can be achieved in Iraq, that the loss of lives can be redeemed by the birth of another world, and this is only a result of receding from neoconservative plans for an empire-building scheme that, apparently, was unhinged enough so as to not-work, such planning needed to be abandoned due to the fact that it failed, and also was driven by internal forces in government, in such a manner that to consider it conspiracy in the realm of forged yellowcake documents, the outing of a CIA officer, the WMD, Nuclear and other claims, the imminency of threats, and the apparent obtuseness to the 'war on terror' and actual threats of bin Laden have has left a lot of people with questions, while even documents to 9/11 have been sealed, Enron documents, their relation to commerce secretary Don Evans, maps of oilfields given by James Baker prior to this for Energy Task Force planning in the .US, these records also being sealed, and then a war declared under false pretenses-- it would not seem brazen for a citizen to have concerns about the motives driving decision making when information is being held captive by courts, judges, private industry, and lobbyists, in a realm as serious as the core stability of the .US government. In any case, it was from Mr. Sharon's own government that indications of who the .US would be attacking next came to press. It was not said by Mr. Bush or Mr. Blair. It was said by the Israeli government, what .US military plans would involve, as more power built up from the 'superpower' that is a bit humbler, hopefully much more realistic today. As Mr. Sharon is related to Likud party politics in Israel, and is apparently informed of what is .US policy when .US citizens were not-- well, it raises this question, first, of what is going on?. And second, of sovereignty of the .US government in its foreign policy, its reasoning, its engagement. Strategy. With due deference to history, this is and will remain a serious issue until it is clear who is steering the ship of state in the .US as, by all accounts, it has been going well off course, and who is really at the helm?* I thought it was VP Dick Cheney myself. That is, until you wrote your piece, as it was a strange and surrealistic logic you were using, and at first it seemed simply absurd until I could not stop considering your point of view, trying to understand how you could be reasoning from this strange position as being in any way accurate. And, in its most immediate effect, it makes the .US polarized in a similar way to Middle-East ideologies, by your own pen, bringing the right- wing Likud-like politics into discourse in the .US, and Israel into .US policy for going to war, or some relation to it, which does relate to neoconservative ideologies from what has been written. Again, Mr. Cheney is most associated with neocon ideology in the Whitehouse, and Mr. Wolfowitz is a cabinet member, now said to be leaving the post-war Iraq Pentagon amidst a cloud of questions over what really is going on, and what the actual reasoned basis for this war was, in terms of .US policy goals and if the neocon order of battle was to be that as Prime Minister Sharon indicated, it was going to include the .US invading more countries, for 'democratic' regime change in Syria and Iran it seemed to be, under whatever pretense would be used. Nuclear has been a consistent argument. Okay, can we agree that we are not now invading Iran? That Syria, maybe with a bit of diplomatic good luck and good will from surrounding countries, may be in a mode of considering its positioning with relation to issues of world threat, though that this still does not vindicate reasons for invading Iraq, on the grounds given thus far? That is, finding WMDs, nuclear facilities, etc? And, instead of invading Iran, after conquering Iraq, the .US is now behaving in relation to the larger force of the world public in a context in which Iraq's sovereignty would be more than that of any neoconservative plan about, say, privatizing their economy and controlling contracts by the .US? These were all central tenets, one by one, knocked off of the neocon agenda and thus there is a policy failure here-- it is very unambiguous, except to say that things may have a chance at some peace that may not have otherwise been possible, in a twist of fate, which may have a lot more to do with the .UN and diplomacy, and Security Council hand- shakes (possibly averting world war III), and this is good, but it does not include empire-building, nor regime change, it instead is requiring responsibility for the actions taken thus far, the lives lost in this decision making, and the lack of transparency in understanding by the public of the public interest in such a pre-emptive policy without sufficient public review, debate, or basic facts. This, again, is no longer a question but a historical event that many lives are now perpetually tied-to as a result of the actions taken, though where is the thought in relation to such actions? In your own words-- it is conspiracy. It is Middle-East political polarization. And in an era of terrorism, where everyone is on the same side, it is the only way to be able to address issues of shared concern while also protecting sovereignty of other nations, including our own here in the .US and in relation to the .UN, working with other governments for peaceful change and transition, hopefully to have war as a last resort, yet in this case it was never in the realm of questioning it seems. Odd. In any case, my analysis of your position is as such: you are connected with events in the news, the rapid cycling of details and information and need to make quick judgments at times, and over time your world view has been defined by this, as a perspective or point of view. When I read your column, at first I was reading it in 'public' or 'human' terms (that thing Dick Cheney apparently is hunting now, as you say unnamed sources tell you.). Well, in a world of shadows and of slim shadies, there is probably a wide range of cultural influences to be decided upon to the point one may close in on some type of identifiable position (say, as you do, 'neoconservative') and then, in turn, be called on to defend that position at the same time, in a public way, outside of just private reasoning. That is, if one is to take a position in their mind, and to try to translate it into the wider field of human endeavors, to find relation. This is a hypothesis for your perspective in your piece, about anti-semitic thought, in relation to positions close to your own network of relations. And, to put it into a context, it would be to say that this position of yours may be reflecting a private vantage of these events, that may seem absurd to those of us out- side of this worldview, at the same time it is supposed to represent something in-between the range of experience, in the sense of information or truth or facts-- and that trying to bridge these, a private, not public, logic is used in which intimate terms are employed as a common denominator when they are not this, and instead they further narrow your position and isolate what may be otherwise valid views to argue with. Though, when you write the following... 'In truth, the people labeled neocons (con is short for "conservative" and neo is short for "Jewish") travel in widely different circles and don't actually have much contact with one another.' ...It is very difficult if not impossible to accept 'truth' which is an obvious lie, meaning that neo is short for "Jewish." It may be this, in very private terms and in conversations in your network of contacts, friends, organizations, as a way of relating though it may have now been mixed up with a public perspective (False. the prefix 'neo', etymologically, is most certainly not short for "Jewish", if it is taken in public terms of public record, dictionaries are a resource to reference.) Psychologically, and culturally, the logic you are using could be said to be your own private language, and the point you are trying to make is one that may not be able to be made in the scale or the larger 'public' network of human reasoning. This is to say, your private views do not reflect, realistically, the public view of what is going on, and in a very real way are of serious danger if to bring discourses of Sharon's Middle-East into .US politics, in the extreme right-wing position. Can you relate to the issue of sovereignty of the public position of a .US citizen, that the .US is not Israel? Nor a Jewish State? I am sure you can and do not believe you are insinuating this-- yet it is what is so dangerous about your untimely article, in that it is very likely to snowball into a Anti-Semitic vs. Semitic cultural fiasco in the .US, again, non-representative of the issues the .US is facing with these policies of neoconservatives, who are aligned, it would seem, much more with the extreme Christian Right, or so it would seem to be. In any cased, the further devolution into these private religious invocations and of clashing cultures is basically a type of martyrdom mission of last resort for an ideology that has run out of ideas, and I am sorry to be one of the many who has to inform you of this in front of 3,000 people who may be less forgiving than this, due to the dishonesty and hatred used to try to discredit valid public inquiry into .US policies, by citizens of the .US, and by the world community, including the .UN, all of which need clear-headed thinking, reasonable positions, in order to move onward to a world working toward peace. Though because of the involvement of Mr. Sharon into the sovereign realm of .US policy, or the appearance thereof, it is questionable when recent efforts made by Palestine and Egypt to move towards peace was met by resistence in the Sharon Government, a violence that almost seems inevitable no matter what happens, as if there is some kind of holding pattern going on, to hold out for a better deal, and diplomatic talks to happen do not, and-- importantly, the .US is silent throughout this whole affair. That is, if we are actually to deal with the issues of the Middle-East, and terrorism, certainty then it is in the best interests of every country to find a real and legitimate peace between Palestine and Israel, yet also between these same forces through- out the world, if anything has even the most remote chance to improve. That is to say-- it is in everyone's best interest, in an era of Terrorism, especially so, to make changes, achieve a fundamental peace, and strengthen the social and cultural orders through institutions like the .UN, and the .US and others like the .EU, .CN, and .RU amongst other nations who are members of the world diplomatic body. Then, why is the .US silent on these positive developments, letting them pass by, while in Palestine a public voice is made of this breaking down, and at the same time, hair-trigger alerts and pre- emptive attacks while a new wall is to be built, and, as is common enough of knowledge, a satellite launch during this period likely related to serious escalation and the seriousness of this event. And-- the .US is silent, Israel is on the offense, and peace talks break down-- at the same time relations are totally changing with respect to Libya, Iran, even North Korea but on, again, these same private missions that .US and other officials are conducting outside of the 'official' diplomatic missions, as it is not a neoconservative position and persons like Mr. John Bolten and others actively work to discredit any work towards peace, as it does not reflect previous plansf or positions, it is ideologically set, and as such is unable to adapt to changing and changed circumstances. The world turns. The above questions of course relate to stability, peace, and preparing for a type of active approach to collaboration and to address and work towards relations based on some public commonality. Yet in your article, the position argued is one that is basically of a Likud-like politics, or so for the naive observer who is not out to demonize, yet finds it curious how the failure of neoconservative policies are being reframed in terms of Middle-East politics, it works as a smokescreen, to keep questions away from the reasons for war, the realities post-war in Iraq and in the world, and the absolute failure of the neoconservative ideology to suit .US interests in the Middle-East or elsewhere, in realistic terms. Idealistically, maybe as an experiment this type of planning is of the norm, done all the time. Yet to enact such a plan hatched in the quarter's that it was (private think tanks) and make this public policy is, well, reminiscent of other as-of-yet correlated events, such as Enron, the .US energy task force, even the past election and the decision by the Supreme Court, and of course the most basic of questions about 9/11 and related papers. We're not even talking about oil here, yet, and it seems there is quite a bit to ponder. Oh, and about that 9/11 thing, there was word from an anonymous source that the .US government and the .US administration was given warning of Enron energy issues at some time during the first two weeks at a Canadian consulate. The person said it was necessary to talk their way in, so as to demand to be heard, to share concerns of pre-Enron indications of a conspiracy, yet these were not the terms used, they said. In addition, during that video and audio- taped interview, they gave an impression of some vague sense that something was not right in the United States, to the effect they compared it to a sense of an event, 'like a plane crash, only bigger' that was shared by others, apparently. This person also said that twice, two times, the worker at the consulate asked "What do you know about an airplane--?" "What did you say about an airplane? What do you know...". This anonymous source who said this is what occurred one month prior to 9/11 is proof-positive, they said, that Mr. Bush knew of this interview which the person confided they did out of concern for the impacts of corruption in the .US energy sector, and had no foreknowledge of any actual events. And yet, having to do with Enron at which time, a month or so later, collapsed in total ruin, and having the .US president using what seemed to be references to this interview in public speeches, makes this person convinced of knowledge of this vague canary-in-a- coalmine concern. Twice, again, they said they mentioned in the same interview as Enron, the issue of airplanes and in turn, were uncharacteristically queried. The person requires anonymity because papers related to 9/11 have not yet been released, nor has Enron been prosecuted, a war has just been conducted and any contesting of this is said to be a conspiracy. And, since Mr. Cheney is human hunting, it may not be a good time to go 'public' with such a claim. Though they believe that as a result of the disintegration of political discourse that they may be in danger if such raw forces be unleashed in the .US, and so they chose now to talk share this. That is, they have concern should 2004 go further into this private ideology, as it would mean they may not be around long after election time, given the givens today. With a great amount of credit due to you. In any case, please send my private best regards to Mr. Cheney, a neoconservative representative in the Bush administration. I realize the stuff about microwaves is silly stuff indeed, and probably has no relation whatsoever to the much valued metronome he must have around for his exquisite timing in relation to all the issues discussed above. And surely he is not shielding himself from public view or access because of it. Though if you happen to see him out on one of his human hunting trips, as you say, please send him regards from the .US public and the .US citizenry willing to die for this country. Your response to any of this is appreciated. I hope this enables a public discussion of the issues raised and their importance. Regards, Brian Thomas Carroll brian thomas carroll: research-design-development architecture, education, electromagnetism http://www.electronetwork.org/bc/ * IMF Researchers: US Budget Gaps Endanger Global Economy By Joseph Rebello, Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES // energy tax. <http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=808&u=/dowjones/20040107/ bs_dowjones/200401071721001228&printer=1> 'The White House has said it expects the budget deficit to expand to a record $ 475 billion in fiscal 2004, exceeding 4% of the gross domestic product. U.S. Treasury Secretary John Snow on Wednesday described that level as "entirely manageable," and said the Bush administration expects the deficit to shrink to 2% of GDP ( news -web sites ) within five years.' .. 'But the IMF researchers said that won't be enough to address the government's long-term fiscal problems - including financing the Social Security ( news -web sites ) and Medicare programs over the next 75 years. In their report, they said the government faces a $47 trillion shortfall in its ability to pay for those and all other long-term obligations. Closing that gap would require "an immediate and permanent" federal tax increase of 60% or a 50% cut in Social Security and Medicare benefits.' ... 'Congress and the White House can avert those dangers by acting immediately to balance the budgets, the researchers estimated. Allowing the recent tax cuts to expire by 2013 would reduce the budget shortfall by nearly half. The researchers also said Congress should consider a tax on energy consumption, arguing that it would "help meet the administration's environmental objectives while also providing substantial support for fiscal consolidation." Such tax increases, they calculated, would have a minimal effect on U.S. economic growth.' Report: Ex-Enron CFO negotiating plea // .US Energy Task Force pioneer <http://salon.com/tech/wire/2004/01/07/enron/> 'Andrew Fastow, 42, is charged with 98 counts of fraud, money laundering, insider trading and other charges for allegedly masterminding a web of schemes that hid Enron's debt, inflated profits and allowed him to skim millions of dollars for himself, his family and selected friends and colleagues. He has pleaded innocent and is free on $5 million bond. He has asked the court to move his trial, scheduled for April, out of Houston - preferably out of the state.' ... 'Lea Fastow, 42, was formerly assistant treasurer at Enron. She is charged with six criminal counts, including conspiracy to commit wire fraud, money laundering and four counts of making false tax returns. She has previously pleaded innocent on all counts.' # distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: majordomo@bbs.thing.net and "info nettime-l" in the msg body # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net