Saturday, August 31, 2013

Obama and Syria


It's just hard to take someone seriously as a villain who looks so much like a turtle.

I believe Obama is absolutely right to ask Congress for permission before taking action on Syria. It is the legal requirement, and he needs this kind of political backing in order to take the action that is really needed. He needs to do more than just lob a few missiles. He also needs the backing of the Arab League—which he does not yet have.

If he gets this support, however, he needs to take advantage of this formal mandate to do something substantive. Unless there is a clearly-defined and meaningful military target, firing missiles at Assad while leaving him in power is only likely to enhance his prestige and his position. And the debate has given him ample time to protect any meaningful military targets from such a strike. So this approach seems worse than useless—really an admission of American weakness. Sanctions invariably hurt the poor, not the regime. Even doing something that would topple the Assad regime might be counterproductive from the American perspective: the strongest element of the opposition is Islamist.

Accordingly, if Obama is going to do anything, he has to do the full monty. The only useful alternative is a full-scale invasion to overthrow the government.

No doubt this sounds crazy. The US is stretched financially and militarily and in recession. There is no stomach for more Middle Eastern adventures. Interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan have bogged them down for years.

This is one reason why a full invasion is necessary: to prove American resolve. To prove that America cannot be scared off, as the Japanese hoped Pearl Harbor would.

Invading Syria need not be the expensive proposition Iraq and Afghanistan have turned out to be. Iraq and Afghanistan involved one fundamental and obvious mistake, that need not be repeated: there need be no nation-building. Go in, take out the regime, get out. If you recall, the matter of overthrowing the regime was, in both prior cases, extremely easy. Syria would be easier. It is a smaller piece of land, more accessible from the sea, and it has almost no natural defenses. It is ideal tank country. Moreover, the Syrian military is already fully engaged in fighting the rebels; the use of chemical weapons suggests that their position is desperate already. The US has a strong ally in Turkey, with a long border to the north; and another ally in Jordan, to the south, close to the Syrian capital. One fast pincer movement.







Boots. Ground. Deal with it.

If the US then just pulls out, I see no problem. By going in and taking out a regime easily and efficiently, it automatically ensures that any succeeding regime will be sensitive to US pressures. What it did easily once, it can do easily again.

But if it really must mess around with democratizing and all that, there is a simple solution available here that was not available in Iraq or Afghanistan: let Turkey do it. Turkey is interested these days in extending its influence in the Arab world. Syria was, not so long ago, Turkish/Ottoman territory, so it is a natural sphere of influence. Turkey has the manpower to do it, and the supply problems would be minimal. Turkey is a fellow Muslim country, so it would look less like “western interference.” And Turkey is a functioning democracy.

Can the US afford it? Maybe they don't have to. Saudi Arabia and Qatar have declared against Assad; they are concerned with the fate of the Sunni majority in Syria. Very well—their own militaries are not large, but their contribution can be to help fund the invasion.





Absolutely. No. Natural. Borders.

The result: the Syrian people would be free of a dictator; the next dictator would think long and hard before using chemical weapons; American prestige in the Middle East would be restored, and US concerns would be heeded; Turkish prestige in the Middle East, as a functioning democracy, would be enhanced; Syria would have a decent chance at democracy; and Iran would lose its only ally in the region.

Of course, if Obama loses the vote in Congress, as he is likely to, it’s all off. For now. But he can still do two things. First, arm any factions he can identify in Syria who are genuinely pro-Western, if any. Second, start beating the war drums. It took a long time to build up a coalition and popular opinion against Saddam. This administration has barely begun to do the same against Assad. It was not long ago that Hillary Clinton was characterizing him as “a reformer.”

Friday, August 30, 2013

Whatever Happened to RD Laing?


RD Laing tackling a knotty problem.
I cannot pass a dollar book bin without looking in. Not long ago, I came across one in front of a bookshop in Windsor's Walkerville. I dredged up a papeback copy of RD Laing's The Politics of the Family.

Whatever happened to RD Laing? He was the most famous psychologist of the Sixties, as well known as Jung or Freud. Now you hardly even hear the name.

Laing's basic idea was that “mental illness” was not an illness at all, but a coherent response by an individual to an impossible situation. Most often, this was a situation within the family—in effect, the family was mad, its solidarity built on a lie, and one or more individuals within it were sacrificed to sustain the delusion. Laing's brilliance was in analysing the way people can be caught by social situations in “double binds,” in which, whichever choice they make, they are in the wrong. This is the essence of abuse. Depression or even psychosis was the result.

A recent discussion of Laing in the Guardian prompted a lot of comments, which seemed to fall into two groups: comments by professionals claiming that Laing had been disproven, and comments by those diagnosed as mentally ill, or their friends, insisting that Laing was spot on in their own case, or that of their friend.

I don't think Laing has been disproven at all. He was eclipsed, certainly, by a move in psychiatry, encouraged by genetic science, and peaking in about 1990, to ascribe absolutely everything (notably including homosexuality) to genetics. It was the fad of the day, just as everything, including mental illness, was once ascribed to electricity. But since then, the tide has turned, and the actual evidence is piling up that Laing was on the right track all along.

Unfortunately, Laing did not help his own cause. Starting in the early seventies, he seemed to lose interest in his thesis, and indeed to backtrack. He got involved instead in eastern meditation, poetry, alcohol, and rebirthing therapy. I saw him lecture in about 1973, and he already seemed off the rails: instead of talking about psychology, he gave a rambling argument against abortion. A stand that seemed perfectly calculated, of course, to lose him all his political support, which had been on the “New Left.”

Here's what I think happened: both Laing and psychology in general backed away from the Laingian explanation for “mental illness” not because it was wrong, but because it was politically risky. Anyone who does not believe that politics is a major consideration in the field of psychiatry does not know the story of how homosexuality went, in a weekend, from being a treatable mental illness to an unalterable element of self and a human right.

The sad truth is that you can say or do anything you want about the “mentally ill.” They are powerless. But if you say anything against their families, you are bound to get one hell of a political backlash. These are people capable of defending themselves, and in their eyes, if, as Laing believed, they are delusional, you are slandering them. A lot of the “mentally ill” come from highly respectable, indeed prominent, families. This may even be the norm.

And there's worse. If families can drive one or more of their members mad with “double binds,” so too, logically, can other social groups of all kinds: churches, neighbourhoods, governments, employers. This means that 1) some accused families might indeed be quite innocent, the fault lying with another level of social interaction, and 2) you are implicitly challenging all centres of social power—all political entities—with this thesis. 

Backlash? You want backlash? 

Laing himself saw this logical implication, and was courageous or naive enough to level the accusations, in The Politics of Experience, against society as a whole.

Moreover, 3) as a practical matter, neither individual families nor society as a whole are likely to change. So even if Laing's thesis is exactly right, it is not of much commercial value: it leaves psychiatrists and psychologists with nothing to sell.

Certainly reason enough for the profession of psychology/psychiatry to back away from the whole area of enquiry, at least for a generation. Too dangerous to a group of people who, in the end, put their first priority on their own social status and large incomes. And I expect also reason enough for Laing himself to back away—into eastern mysticism, prevarication, the literary approach, and generic “rebirthing.” These are exactly the evasive tactics I would expect in these circumstances. As it was, his controversial stands earned him a persistent rumour that he himself was schizophrenic, and cost him his medical license.



But in the end, all he was saying was what the New Testament has always been saying. And Christianity is presented there as the specific cure. 

Eastern mysticism came damned close.

Thursday, August 29, 2013

And Now for Something Completely Different...







Quacker Jack

I bought my daughter a big bag of rubber ducks for her birthday. Usually, she names everything, and gives them an imaginary character. This time, the sheer numbers overwhelmed her.

Just for fun, trying to help out with as many rubber duck names as I can muster:

Quacker Jack
Joe Duck
Feathers Fitzwater
Luke Pondwalker
Jemima Cuddleduck
Bill Wigglebutt
Shotgun Bait Bart
Shoelips Larry
Port Jelly Jim
Webs Murphy
The Ugly Swanling
Aquachicken
Nibble McFinger
Lord Drake of Crossharbour
Plastic Bob
Fred Flotsam
Dances-with-Fish
Zen Unduck
Wahid Pondwalla
Mick Riverdance
Mississippi John Squirt
Proud Mary
Louie Lakelump
Butterfeathers
Sidepaddle Sid
Roman Ben Anas
Percy the Lake Monster
Moe With-the-Flow
Groucho Viaduck
Smackwater Quack
Dr. Dogpaddle
Algernon Algaesucker

There! Now they all have a name!

Tuesday, August 27, 2013

Christian Family Values




Holy Family. Joseph was kind of left out, wasn't he?
34 “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn
“‘a man against his father,
    a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law—
36     a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’[c]
37 “Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.
--Matthew 10:34-37, NIV

So much for “family values,” eh? Not a Christian concept—rather, something a lot of people think is good, and so they assume it must be in the Bible although it is not there. Like prohibition. Jesus is actually saying that the express effect of Christianity, followed properly, will be conflict within the family.

Like nations, towns, “peer groups,” and all other forms of social organization, families are in the end a part of the Devil’s realm, the earthly kingdom. Almost automatically, their demands are in conflict with conscience. Almost automatically, they exclude and discriminate. Almost automatically, one or more members get scapegoated and devoured. Group dynamics are generally an ugly thing.

Of course, families vary widely in their morality. Some are hellishly evil, and some are relatively good. When civil government is bad, the family can be an invaluable support. And, like civil government, families are a practical necessity. 

Let’s just not fall into any idolatries here.

Unschooling

There are many studies that show that the average parent can teach far more effectively than the average teacher. This article from Salon goes further. It argues that doing nothing produces at least as good a result as sending a kid to a public school.


"the more scientists have learned about how children naturally learn, the more we have come to realize that children learn most deeply and fully, and with greatest enthusiasm, in conditions that are almost opposite to those of school."
"with each successive grade, students develop increasingly negative attitudes toward the subjects taught, especially math and science."

Female Teachers Discriminate



Don't even think about it.

I might have posted this before. It is worrisome. Not just for what it says about the schools and their effect on boys, but about the probable objectivity of women in authority generally, and of their probable discrimination on other grounds than sex as well.

Women are by their nature partisan--as Rudyard Kipling famously pointed out in his poem, "The Female of the Species is More Deadly than the Male." They are bred by evolution to be, because of their primary task of nurturing and protecting children. You do not want to disturb a female bear with cubs.

It follows that women placed in positions of authority will be partisan, which is to say, unjust. They will have favourites. They will discriminate. It follows that it is generally a bad idea to employ women as teachers, judges, managers, CEOs, or legislators. 


Sunday, August 25, 2013

More Salinger to Come?

Here, if true, is exceptionally good news: new Salinger stories and novels are going to appear soon.

I strongly suspect this is true, and have been waiting for it. Most writers write as a matter of compulsion. So it seems to me unlikely that JD Salinger was not writing all those years since "Hapworth."

Of course, the writing might be drek. But I think the odds are that it is good. By ceasing publication and waiting until his death, Salinger seems to have been trying to free himself to write with absolute sincerity and without any distracting ulterior considerations.

The history of posthumous publication is an encouraging one. It includes the Aeneid, Emily Dickenson's entire production, Wordsword's Prelude, Kafka's The Trial, The Canterbury Tales, Doctor Faustus, Faust, and The Dream of the Red Chamber.

I should write so well after I'm dead.




The Wolfe Island Apocalypse




And was Jerusalem builded here? Wolfe Island, Ontario.

Revisiting Wolfe Island, Ontario after many years, I discover it is now one huge “wind farm.” The flat terrain and the surrounding lake are apparently ideal for wind turbines.

Approaching in the Wolfe Island Ferry, my six year-old say the turbines, and spontaneously remarked, “It’s the end of the world.” My first thought was William Blake’s reference to “dark satanic mills,” in “Preface to Jerusalem.”

Apart from the noise pollution of the turbines, and the fact that they kill birds, and generate little power, I think the visual damage to the landscape is an important consideration. This falls under the heading of feng shui, the Chinese art and science of ergonomics. Symbolically, wind turbines or wind mills are very dark. They represent an attempt to harness the spirit (the root word and image here is “wind”) for materialist purposes. This is the definition of black magic, of conjuring.

This may seem trivial in in itself to a materialistic mind set. But, whether we are conscious of it or not, such symbolic implications register emotionally, and can generate an overall feeling of unease or disquiet, which can build up over time and have a serious effect on our quality of life. The intelligent awareness of such subconscious messages is why a Chinese or Japanese tea garden can seem so restful.



Old mill stream. Upper Canada Village, Ontario.

Interestingly, by contrast, a water mill or water wheel is symbolically pleasant and peaceful. Water is emotion, time, and change. Symbolically harnessing and regulating it in such a way suggests tranquility, like the regular turning of the seasons.

We ought to engineer with these considerations in mind.