Wednesday, June 25, 2003

Stream of Commute - June 25, 2003

does anyone expect that W. Bush knew exactly how many troops we had months before the party convention? does anyone remember how little he knew at all when ambushed in a similar fashion as Dean in his run?


affirmative action - need to assure that the minority kids who do get in really are from a diverse base, and not just coming from the same good schools. how would this work? differentiation by school, or neighborhood? probably best by school, so that an elite sampling from each, of the best achievers at each, would get into the best schools, and thus ensure a representative sampling of the nation

actually, this makes more sense than anything, since if true diversity is what you're looking for, than it should be a diversity rooted in the diversity of our schools. this would also assure against receiving less of an education at one school than another, since the university should equally educate individuals from all regions and neighborhoods of America, and minor differences in entrance scores and grades don't necessarily predicate success at the university, as a low-income student with a lower quality education isn't necessarily worse off for wear at the university because the SAT scores are less. it doesn't mean much, plus the success of the university itself shouldn't be solely on the so-called "brilliance" of its students, compared to each institution, but in successfully educating the incoming diversity of students so that the mission is met.

one would also want to assure that an individual does not transfer to a lesser school for just the final year, or any such nonsense as that. there must be a workable and accountable system in place, to determine the grades a student receives along with the ranking of the school from which the grade took place.


Israel is detaining individuals for being in the same mosque? or being a friend or associate of, having grown up with, a "suspected" Hamas militant?


the anti-semitism forces just seem too heavy-handed in the face of freedom of expression and art. surely all portrayals of Jews cannot be cleansed of any negativism, just as negative portraits of any ethnicity can similarly not be cleansed. otherwise, what do we end up with? what kind of history? "revisionist" history? surely there are bad guys in the course of world history, of any number of ethnicities and cultures, take the Catholics during the Crusades for example, but does this mean one should not ever portray one's interpretation of such events? so we will only have positive portrayals of everything? what kind of history is that? or is history now to be seen as distinct from media and entertainment?

if this history is to go forward, how would it depict the peoples of the world throughout history, the wars, and culture clashes? as unfortunate remnants of the past, and that's it, with no critical examination? I mean, the Jews themselves in Zionist Israel do not embrace any postmodern dignified global transhumanism. far from it. they support and defend cultural difference, while at the same time seeking to control the communication and interpretation of such difference.

will we have "official" enemies or evil that can legitimately be portrayed negatively, or would this be just a cynical turnaround of the negative role Jews have played for hate-provoking, evil-projecting cultures and individuals?

perhaps the solution would be to show everything as the product of individual decision, independent of any collective identity. if so, this would be admirable in some ways, as a value to be asserted, but would this really be the case throughout history? to assert that individual difference, decision and moral responsibility trumped cultural and collective roles?

the anti-semites open up a pandora's box of political correctness that should never be loosed. let history be history, and interpretation be interpretation. no collective is more special in this regard than any other, any more, so to wish it for one's own group will mean to wish it for all, with any legitimacy, and then what do you have left in terms of history and legitimate expression?

by the way, expression does not have to be legitimate. in America, the only check on it is as a "clear and present danger" to rights and to America. this does not fit the bill, and thus the ADL works against American values. this is their right, but must be seen in the proper light, and not given more credence or legitimacy, and certainly no legal status, than it deserves.


so Gibson can't show a movie that depicts some Jews as negative, but Israel can detain non-citizens without cause merely for attending the same mosque as "suspected" militants?



rollo may - oppressed peoples and projection. we are losing the battle to redirect the projection of the oppressed Iraqi people. more and more, it is becoming us as the source of projection of evil, and of their misery, and not Saddam, who is the rightful target.


in regards to LA Times editorial today by Caleb Carr...

we didn't just lie about the war to the American people, we lied to our allies and the world. in addition, if lies were indeed made, they were about the very rationale and justification for going to war in the first place. there is no compelling (or consistent) strategic reason that any but a small minority would buy into that we needed to democratize Iraq.

also, occupation fatigue may be easy to emerge in Iraq because we weren't suppose to occupy Iraq. they were supposed to want us, and to celebrate us. this is different than afghanistan.

one cannot make generalizations across the board. the strategy to go to war in Iraq, if not based on the deception, is based on a radical blueprint by which the vast majority of Americans, both regular citizens and strategists, would have not have signed on for, or agreed to pay for.