-I have caught up a little more with the Iranian protests and this is what I think. At its core, I'm a bit more skeptical of the American media. One simply has to watch Buying the War by Bill Moyer and see how the media works hand in hand with the government, as opposed to keeping the government accountable. For example, pertaining to the Iraq War, the major news network such as Fox, CNN, and MSNBC were overwhelmingly focused on the threat of Iraq over WMD's, link with Al-Qaeda, and dictatorship, and these networks did so in the interest of finding favor with the government, competition with other networks, and patriotism. The smaller news networks who saw the lack of proof and irrationality of war was pushed aside. In another example, this was visible with the coverage on Russia's invasion of Georgia. U.S. simply assumed that Russia cast the first stone, and sent $1 billion military aid to Georgia. This was not the case with other international sources as they debated who comitted the first strike. When it was later confirmed that Georgia attacked first, to my knowledge, this story was barely covered, and Condaleeza Rice simply responded, "I'm not surprised."
-How does this apply to Iran? It applys in the ideas we assume and the way the media covers the issue. The first assumption is that the election was rigged, and I think this assumption stems from the unfriendly terms with Iran since 1979 and therefore whoever is against the established government are the "good guys." I'm not saying election was not rigged, but I think no one has any solid evidence that's not based on conclusions from suspicious, ambigous behavior. Someone mentioned that Ahmadinejad was declared the winner before the votes were finalized, and therefore the election was suspiciously rigged. On the other hand, this has happened in American history, although the announced winner lost when the votes were finalized. I think it's possible, if not just as likely, to declare yourself the winner early on, and actually win. The press also covers the government as brutal and repressive, but fails to acknowledge that is what free states and dictatorships do. For example, in the 30's when WWI veterans (AKA Bonus Army) rallied to receive the G.I. Bill of Rights earlier than 1944 (when it was to be ratified), the government cracked down on the veterans and several people were killed. The same was true for Vietnam War protests during the Kent State shootings, where several protestors were shot and killed. Repression is not only done by dictators and oppressive governments, but free states as well.
-Maybe our past brutality should not justify Iran's brutality, and the truth is, the riots are brutal. Watching someone die, blood spilling from the mouth and nose, with a haunting stare is hard to watch. But before attributing the government as inherently evil, we should ask ourselves a couple questions. What is the government's point of view on domestic riots? Wouldn't it be something to the affect of "we need to protect our power structure," or "we need to protect our free society," depending on who's rioting and where? Even if they wanted to keep their power, they would think that they're using it for good or are somehow justified or necessary, not view themselves brutal oppressive dictators. What I am implying is that we need to look at this from not just American vs. Iranian point of view, but a government point of view. Sometimes, repression is not necessarily a tactic of a repressive government, but a natural reaction of any government, though noted not all the time. Other questions to consider include: To what degree of repression is necessary to call a state repressive? The U.S. does it, but we're a free state. What about Iran? Free state relative to who? The West or Middle East?
-Iran has claimed that the protests stem from the West meddling with Middle Eastern politics, but Obama has refuted this. But according to the former U.S. national security advisor Bren Sowcroft, there are U.S. intelligence agents in Iran. The details are unknown and even Sowcroft seem to be ambigious to the role of those agents in Iran. My guess is that intelligence agents are probably in Iran, but have limited power in changing the outcome of the protests. But are there other ways of affecting Iran in different ways such as the media outside of Iran and these external sources going into Iran? Can this be considered meddling with Middle Eastern politics? If it is, to what extent and is it ethical?
-My conclusion is strictly consequentialist. If the majority really voted for Mosavi and the election was really rigged, then the people have a right demonstrate. If the majority people really voted for Ahmadinejad, then the Moussavi's supporters are just poor losers and should accept the election. What I am saying is that Moussavi's camp is viewed as the democratic "good guys" and the government is the evil dictator in Western media, and I am skeptical of that view based on past news media coverage, and I have not heard any statement that convinced me the election was rigged or not. I am also skeptical because emphasizing Moussavi serves U.S. interests, and since it would be unwise to intervene, the government can let the media and the people take care of it. By doing so, will it become another mess such as Iraq, or be a success story such as South Africa's break from Apartheid, or will anything happen at all? Moussavi and his supporters are inspiring and their fight for democracy certainly stirs the blood. Lets hope Moussavi has the majority and not forget that there are also many Ahmadinejad supporters too. We may not like it, but it's their democracy, not ours.
Terrorism, Crime, and Double Standards... Again...
-I was writing my previous entry, when a question came to mind: Why is Carlos Bledsoe (Abdul Hakim Mujahid Muhammad), the man who shot two Army recruiters, killing one, charged with terrorist acts, but not Scott Roeder, the man who killed Dr. Tiller? To my knowledge, terrorism is not a particularly well defined term, but there are two common elements. The first is that terrorism is based on ideology, the second is the targetting of civilians. Let's compare Bledsoe with Roeder. Both murderers were ideologically based. Roeder's act was based on the issue of abortion while Bledsoe was based on American foreign policy. Roeder murdered Dr. Tiller, a civilian, while Bledsoe shot two Army-Navy recruiters, while being based at home, I still consider military personnel and not civilians.
-So here are my questions. How do we distinguish between criminal acts, hate crimes, and terrorism? Why is Bledsoe charged with terrorist acts but not Roeder when Roeder fits the definition of terrorism better than Bledsoe? Is the difference really about civilian vs. government personel and not civilian vs. military/non-civilian? Even if that is true, shouldn't it be a felony, not terrorism? Why is Bledsoe's recent conversion to Islam such a highlight?
-I am by no means trying to defend Bledsoe, but I am suggesting that the charges be reasonable and that laws should be clear, even though in this case, they're obviously not. Terrorism is a hot cognition, it gets everyone excited and think a certain person or group is the epitome of evil, but that is psychologically unfair for the defendant, especially when the lines for terrorism is blurred. Are we unconsciously saying that when a white Christian murders someone, it's criminal, but when a Muslim murders someone, it's terrorism?
-When I heard about this man, I was rather amazed by his determination to life and his character to not hold a grudge towards Americans. This is exactly why habeas corpus, the right to defend one self in front of a court, is so important. Some people think that closing Gitmo is a threat to national security, should just keep prisoners there for an indefinite amount of time, and think everyone in Gitmo is a terrorist, but the problem is that not everyone is a terrorist. Some were accidentally caught in the crossfire or simply wrongfully suspected as terrorists. Sweeping statements such as no habeas corpus for all prisoners is crude and a troubling idea. As I saw someone comment on YouTube:
We don't give people habeas corpus because they "deserve" it, we give them habeas corpus because it forces the accuser to make a full and compelling case against the accused. This idea that certain people are "bad enough" not to deserve habeas corpus misses the whole point of our system. If they're so bad, then you should be able to prove it in court.
-Slightly changing the subject, lets look at this issue from a psychological viewpoint of behaviorism, specifically the Skinnerian idea that the environment affects us-or nature vs. nurture. This would seem like a contradiction to nurture. It would make sense to me that prisons such as Gitmo, Bagram, and Abu Ghraib would infuriate the Arab community, but in this specific case, I believe America was fortunate to not make another enemy. But let's take a look at other current events. I believe the killer of Dr. George Tiller, Scott Roeder was a product of the environment- at least in part. One can be pro-life and not murder a pro-choice doctor. People react in different ways but I still believe that Roeder was a product of long term past events instilled as beliefs. The second example is the recent shooting of two military recruiters, killing one, by Carlos Bledsoe, also known as Abdul Hakim Mujahid Muhammad. This is one example of America's foreign policy having unintended consequences, turning a moderate Muslim into extremism, and a person becoming a product of the environment.
-People like the idea of free will, taking responsibilities for themselves. I'll have to admit, most people do think the environment is a factor to who we are, but my guess is that they under estimate the power of the environment. There are certainly exceptional people who seem to overcome their harsh circumstances, but the problem is that everyone thinks they're the exception when they're not. As a Christian, to think that American Christians are better because we're a free, moral people is completely flawed. We think Muslims are inferior because of their instable countries and terrorism, disregarding our actions overseas and the environmental obstacles they have to overcome. I would rebuttal by mentioning Scott Roeder. There was no immediate threat to his life or welfare, but he still murdered Dr. Tiller because of his beliefs. If you get to know people of different religion, especially in the U.S., they're very friendly. You may disagree with me and start rationalizing why Christians or Americans are great, but I think the problem is that it is unconscious in beliefs, but visible in the ideas and actions we support, and we're blind to it because it seems so rational.
-Another example include the recent Swine Flu craze, when people started scapegoating Mexicans, a product of fear in our circumstances, founded or not. To me, this is not too different from Nazi Germany in the 30's and 40's. One should keep in mind that Jews were not particularly liked in the U.S. as well as Germany, but with the combination of a worldwide depression and Hitler's leadership, they started scapegoating the Jews. Germans were not an insane country different from any other country, as it was evident in the lower ranks at the end of the war. Even our own soldiers noticed that Germans were decent people, and could have been friends under different circumstances. The truth is, we like to categorize people as good or evil, especially when it's other people, because it's easy and efficient-although not necessarily accurate, but when it happens to us, we make exceptions and rationalize. We make ourselves out to be complicated and diverse and therefore making our actions necessary or acceptable.
-My point is that we are ultimately equal as humans. It does not matter if we're Christian, American, Muslim, or any other group, we're vulnerable to how the environment manipulate us, whether in fear or rationality. I know that we believe everyone to be equal, but unconsciously treat others as unequal, such as nationalism- thinking America is the greatest country in the world or have the best military in the world. Ultimately, we need to feel unique which is fine, but we need to understand the consequences of being unique and not start dividing people. I believe that we are better off thinking others as equal and understand why as equals, we do the things that we do, instead of thinking people as inherently a certain way.
-The Fountain is one of the most beautiful movies you will ever see, and I just watched it for the third time, trying to make sense of it all, and here is my take on it. If you haven't seen the movie, you're not going to understand any of this. I pretty much went with the explanation shown by the links below. I am assuming that the modern day story line is the true story, the conquistador storyline was from the book written by Izzy, and space storyline was Tommy finishing the story as Izzy requested. What confuses me is that the Tom from the future appears momentarily in the conquistador storyline, then changes back to Tomas again. Tomas then metamorphosize into plants. Assuming the futuristic Tom and Tomas are both in The Fountain as mentioned above, is the futuristic Tom and Tomas the same person? But how is that possible since Tomas metamorphosized into plants?
-My explanation as of right now is that futuristic Tom and Tomas is the same person in character, but two different persons physically. Tomas is the first father, but so is the future Tom. I think there is a theme of everything coming together, specifically in a full circle, therefore requiring some sort of bend in time. The future Tom is the first father who sacrifices himself to create earth, and Tomas is reincarnated in the past to search for the Tree of Life, and dies from drinking the sap of the Tree of Life. In essence, the story ends where it began, during the 1500's. The end is the beginning, as this is a repeated theme in the film. Of course this is all a reflection of the contemporary Tom and his struggle with death, but there are two realities within the modern story, which was the choice for Tom to work and the choice to follow Izzy out the door. As Tom realizes the inevitability of death, he decides to follow Izzy, a sign of revelation and as a reaction, to seize the day. I wouldn't be surprised if there are still inconsistencies, but I think it's coherent for the most part.
-An alternative explanation (3rd link) is that the future Tom storyline is true and a continuation of the contemporary Tom. The conquistador storyline is still written by Izzy. The problem is once again the future Tom appearing in the Tomas storyline. To that, I'd offer the same explanation as above. Everything about the alternative storyline is coherent, except future Tom's appearance in the 16th Century. If the future Tom is true, how can he appear in a fictional story? That is unless Tomas was also real, but if that was true, present Tom's writing of the book would lose significant value.
-As to the theme of the movie and what it all means, I think it is more than about making peace with death as I previously thought. As mentioned above it has to do with coming full circle and the paradox of life and death. From death comes life, as the birth of stars come from the death of stars. From life comes death as shown by death from the Tree of Life- and back to life again through flowers. Tomas and future Tom are opposites in the sense that Tomas died pursuing life, and did not make peace with death, but died despite it. Future Tom made peace with death, and was born again with the stars. To live is to die and to die is to live. Finally, the pursuit of immortality is an illusion, but the revelation is that to choose death, to make peace with death, is to live forever through others and the only way to truly live.
