The way of it was not inspiring, or noble, or peaceful, as one might hope a death would be. The long, slow decay brought about by cancer; deterioration, debilitation, weakness. Not a pleasant death for someone always active, sometimes impatient of events and people. Unpleasant for those close to him as well.
He could be demanding, could be angry, could be emotional and overbearing. He could be opinionated. But he was profoundly interested in his family and its well being, essentially an "old school" Italian in that respect and in others. He had a great respect for knowledge and education, and tradition. He was always eager to note the mistakes he felt he had made during life and use them in an effort to prevent you from making the same mistakes. He was genuinely interested in individuals--I use that word advisedly. "People" in general did not catch his attention and were not the focus of his intelligence, but those people he met were the subjects of interest, and sometimes intense interest. He wanted to learn about them, and did so through conversation and questions. He could judge those he met quite well, and could do so accurately in a very short time, finding the good and the bad in them when others, such as myself, were hesitant and undecided in evaluation.
He was a religious man--traditionally religious--and I think that provided comfort to him and others. I'm religious in my own way. It would be wonderful to meet him again, and meet others again, in whatever form. One hopes for immortality of some kind for those close.
Donald Barthelme wrote a book called The Dead Father which I read long ago. The vast figure of The Dead Father was dragged about by his children, through all sorts of situations and circumstances. Barthelme in his fragmented style would comment on the figure and the events, the relations between the figure and the events, sons and fathers, fatherhood. In a sense, one's father is similarly "with" us even after death, as we carry with us what we learned from him, both good and bad. He shapes one's reality far more than we shape those things which stubbornly exist regardless of us, indifferent to us. A father is a standard.
A son is perpetually indebted to his father for many things, and I'm no exception to that rule. I feel rather like Catullus felt; ave atque vale. The ancient funeral rites which are due must be made and endured. It will be a different world, and a strange one, without him.
Thursday, September 27, 2012
Saturday, September 15, 2012
Religion as Grounds for Violence
The recent killings and protests directed against the U.S. because of an extremely silly and insulting little film invoke their own kind of anger, and lead one to consider just what it is about a religion that causes such reactions.
One can understand anger and condemnation. That is a common enough reaction of the religious when their religion is attacked, regardless of the nature of the religion. In this instance, though, Americans were killed, and embassies of the United States were attacked or made the subject of protests. Those killed had nothing to do with the film, nor did the government of the U.S. Sensible people would understand that. The killings, the attacks and the protests, therefore, make no sense.
The reaction thus is unreasonable, which is to say there is no reason supporting it. It is far more reprehensible than that, however. One's religion simply should not be the grounds on which innocent people--or any people--are murdered. If it is, there is unquestionably something wrong with one's religion.
It is also without question that religions of all kind have been the motivation for violence and murder in our sad history. This has been less the case as time passes, however. For religion to serve such a role now is disturbing. It indicates that some of us, at least, are far more primitive and irrational than they should be in these times.
But it would seem that even if a religion is believed to require in some strange sense that insults to it be met with violence, that violence would only rightly be directed against those making the insults, not against any citizen of the nation in which the insulting happen to reside and not the government of that nation. That lends an especially insane character to the violence in this case.
It is possible, I suppose, that those who did the killing and caused the destruction in this case thought the film was made or sanctioned by the U.S. government. If that's the case, they would be fools, however. Those who believe governments should repress speech must accept the fact that there are some governments which do not. But here, was the government of the U.S. being punished because it allows free speech or because one of its citizens or residents "spoke" in a particular manner? Or did such distinctions even matter to those killing and destroying because of an idiotic film?
We must recognize this reaction for what it is, and not maintain that it should not be condemned or punished because a particular culture or religion sanctions it. Simply put, irrational violence must not be tolerated, regardless of the "reasons" for it.
There is a political issue as well in this case, though, in light of the fact that embassies were attacked and an ambassador killed, and it is apparently true that little was done to protect the embassies in question, and condemnation by the host countries were slow in coming. It may be that the governments or elements in them sympathized with the violence.
Because of the nature and significance of embassies in international law and relations, some kind of punitive action would be appropriate. I don't think the U.S. can simply let this pass. If it does, it is probable it will take place again.
One can understand anger and condemnation. That is a common enough reaction of the religious when their religion is attacked, regardless of the nature of the religion. In this instance, though, Americans were killed, and embassies of the United States were attacked or made the subject of protests. Those killed had nothing to do with the film, nor did the government of the U.S. Sensible people would understand that. The killings, the attacks and the protests, therefore, make no sense.
The reaction thus is unreasonable, which is to say there is no reason supporting it. It is far more reprehensible than that, however. One's religion simply should not be the grounds on which innocent people--or any people--are murdered. If it is, there is unquestionably something wrong with one's religion.
It is also without question that religions of all kind have been the motivation for violence and murder in our sad history. This has been less the case as time passes, however. For religion to serve such a role now is disturbing. It indicates that some of us, at least, are far more primitive and irrational than they should be in these times.
But it would seem that even if a religion is believed to require in some strange sense that insults to it be met with violence, that violence would only rightly be directed against those making the insults, not against any citizen of the nation in which the insulting happen to reside and not the government of that nation. That lends an especially insane character to the violence in this case.
It is possible, I suppose, that those who did the killing and caused the destruction in this case thought the film was made or sanctioned by the U.S. government. If that's the case, they would be fools, however. Those who believe governments should repress speech must accept the fact that there are some governments which do not. But here, was the government of the U.S. being punished because it allows free speech or because one of its citizens or residents "spoke" in a particular manner? Or did such distinctions even matter to those killing and destroying because of an idiotic film?
We must recognize this reaction for what it is, and not maintain that it should not be condemned or punished because a particular culture or religion sanctions it. Simply put, irrational violence must not be tolerated, regardless of the "reasons" for it.
There is a political issue as well in this case, though, in light of the fact that embassies were attacked and an ambassador killed, and it is apparently true that little was done to protect the embassies in question, and condemnation by the host countries were slow in coming. It may be that the governments or elements in them sympathized with the violence.
Because of the nature and significance of embassies in international law and relations, some kind of punitive action would be appropriate. I don't think the U.S. can simply let this pass. If it does, it is probable it will take place again.
Monday, September 3, 2012
Imperium
In ancient Rome, "imperium" was power of command, or authority. One had power to take certain action, or certain things and people were subject to one's authority. "Imperator" was a military title, eventually applied to the military autocrat who came to have authority over all, the Emperor, albeit he was, sometimes, not very military. The Emperor also came to be called Augustus, after of course Augustus Caesar, and Caesar became a title as well in the later Empire, as a kind of second in command to the Augustus. Caesar as a title was passed on after the Empire fell, thus the German Kaiser and the Russian Czar. I wonder why Augustus was not.
I have in mind the great wars of empire, not only those of Rome but those of other would be holders of imperium. In the West, of course, Rome and Great Britain were notable for their imperial wars, but we can't forget Spain, and even France. Germany I do not include because it was never seriously a colonial power, and it seems to me colonies or provinces are characteristic of empires and most of all of imperial wars. The United States took on imperium, at least when it took on the Philippines if not before that.
These wars have a certain fascination for me, because I consider that these empires left their children spread across the world. Some died naturally, some did not. Just why they decided to be soldiers of an imperium is a mystery to me. More of a mystery is why I find this fascinating.
There is a kind of romance involved in it, I think, at least for those of us looking back upon it. Also a kind of irony tinged by romance by virtue of the great defeats sustained by empires throughout history--at Islawanda for the British for example, or Little Bighorn for the Americans, Adrianople for the Romans. But what was involved in it for the Europeans and their descendants who (again in the West) decided to overrun much of the world? I do not refer to the politicians or the merchants, but rather of the soldiers of empire.
I don't think it was merely for the hope of great wealth, though no doubt the pursuit of wealth was a factor in many of their decisions. Was it the urge to be part of a great "civilizing" influence? The desire to take up the "white man's burden" to use Kipling's now infamous phrase? Was there simply nothing else to do, if one was not the eldest son of the nobility, than to distinguish oneself in battle--battle being necessarily to be found among those being conquered?
Death in pursuit of empire; death in the service of empire, imperium. Is there something felt to be inherently noble in this? Perhaps this is one of the great legacies of Rome. The British in their imperial years seemed to deliberately model themselves on Rome.
Now we bring our soldiers of empire home when they die for imperium, but there must be graves spread across the world where soldiers of empire fell and are buried. All in the exercise of power and authority. However, it seems, for what is always called something else. Now it is for democracy, or nation building, or something of the sort.
This characteristic of the exercise of imperium is not a great legacy of Rome. The Romans had no pretensions when it came to the exercise of power and authority, though they believed their exercise of it was entirely proper; unquestionably appropriate. So Virgil wrote of humbling the proud and ruling the nations in peace as peculiarly Roman traits. But the Romans sought to rule and benefit from the ruled without apologies and for no other purpose but to rule and benefit from the ruled. Those benefits which accrued to the conquered people were mere byproducts of the exercise of imperium. Pretensions were the modus operandi of other, later powers. The Christian empires claimed to wield imperium for the good of others.
So, perhaps the soldiers of the Christian empires bought into this idea, for all the good it did them, or does them now. Does this render them more or less honorable?
I have in mind the great wars of empire, not only those of Rome but those of other would be holders of imperium. In the West, of course, Rome and Great Britain were notable for their imperial wars, but we can't forget Spain, and even France. Germany I do not include because it was never seriously a colonial power, and it seems to me colonies or provinces are characteristic of empires and most of all of imperial wars. The United States took on imperium, at least when it took on the Philippines if not before that.
These wars have a certain fascination for me, because I consider that these empires left their children spread across the world. Some died naturally, some did not. Just why they decided to be soldiers of an imperium is a mystery to me. More of a mystery is why I find this fascinating.
There is a kind of romance involved in it, I think, at least for those of us looking back upon it. Also a kind of irony tinged by romance by virtue of the great defeats sustained by empires throughout history--at Islawanda for the British for example, or Little Bighorn for the Americans, Adrianople for the Romans. But what was involved in it for the Europeans and their descendants who (again in the West) decided to overrun much of the world? I do not refer to the politicians or the merchants, but rather of the soldiers of empire.
I don't think it was merely for the hope of great wealth, though no doubt the pursuit of wealth was a factor in many of their decisions. Was it the urge to be part of a great "civilizing" influence? The desire to take up the "white man's burden" to use Kipling's now infamous phrase? Was there simply nothing else to do, if one was not the eldest son of the nobility, than to distinguish oneself in battle--battle being necessarily to be found among those being conquered?
Death in pursuit of empire; death in the service of empire, imperium. Is there something felt to be inherently noble in this? Perhaps this is one of the great legacies of Rome. The British in their imperial years seemed to deliberately model themselves on Rome.
Now we bring our soldiers of empire home when they die for imperium, but there must be graves spread across the world where soldiers of empire fell and are buried. All in the exercise of power and authority. However, it seems, for what is always called something else. Now it is for democracy, or nation building, or something of the sort.
This characteristic of the exercise of imperium is not a great legacy of Rome. The Romans had no pretensions when it came to the exercise of power and authority, though they believed their exercise of it was entirely proper; unquestionably appropriate. So Virgil wrote of humbling the proud and ruling the nations in peace as peculiarly Roman traits. But the Romans sought to rule and benefit from the ruled without apologies and for no other purpose but to rule and benefit from the ruled. Those benefits which accrued to the conquered people were mere byproducts of the exercise of imperium. Pretensions were the modus operandi of other, later powers. The Christian empires claimed to wield imperium for the good of others.
So, perhaps the soldiers of the Christian empires bought into this idea, for all the good it did them, or does them now. Does this render them more or less honorable?
Saturday, August 25, 2012
The Most Stupid People
J.S. Mill once said, in one of his relatively few statements as a member of Parliament for a short time, that "[c]onservatives are not necessarily stupid people, but most stupid people are Conservatives." His statement related to the Conservatives of his time, but I wonder if it is true regarding those of our time, or to those who call themselves "conservative" in our times, here in this Great Republic.
One doesn't expect profound thinking or perhaps even thought from the likes of Hank Williams, Jr., and I've always been inclined to disregard political pronouncements from our professional entertainers of any stripe, whether they foolishly volunteer their opinions or are egged on by eager members of the media. But there are those from whom we may expect something approaching the ability to think, and among those are such as judges and those running for national office. The recent statements of a county judge in Texas who will remain unnamed here (primarily because I find it difficult to resist the urge to make play with that name) and those of candidate Akin cause me to believe that expectation is unfounded.
There is an honorable intellectual tradition in Conservative thought. But in this country it seems to have been eclipsed by a tradition which is virulently anti-intellectual, anti-reason, anti-science and anti-that-which-is-not-white-American and conventionally religious and anti-intellectual, anti-reason and anti-science. This must be disturbing to any intelligent Conservative, as in our most unfortunate two-party system it means for the most part that those intelligent Conservatives who exist must necessarily associate themselves with members of the Republican Party, who seem intent on demonstrating that they are, mostly, stupid people.
In this farcical presidential election, we have an incumbent president who I think would in normal circumstances be quite vulnerable. However, the association of most stupid people with the Republican Party may very well manage to make a president who has, I think it's fair to say, been incompetent look like the only reasonable alternative to government by ignorant buffoons. It is a horrible situation to be in at a critical time.
Conservatism is generally typified by a caution regarding change, particularly change implemented by government. However, it can be a viable political philosophy only if it can recognize change which has already taken place. The Republican Party seems to have considerable trouble accepting such change; in the status of women, gays, religion and the so-called minorities which will soon enough be a majority. It seems convinced that the majority of the American people are ersatz versions of Bocephus, Pat Robertson and the enormously wealthy. This simply is untrue now, and will be staggeringly untrue in the future.
If a thoughtful Conservatism is to survive, it must disassociate itself from the Know-Nothings, fundamentalists and tycoons who have become the representatives of the Right in these dark times. It must champion reason and freedom and the rule of law. The rule of law includes in this nation a neutral stance regarding religion. It should neither encourage nor discourage it. It should not sanction the imposition of religious views nor should it sanction the prohibition of religious views. Simply put, religion is not the law.
A thoughtful Conservatism as a political force may turn out to be impossible in our two-party system, but I think it would be desirable if a party was formed which could support the idea of limited government and individual liberty and yet manage not to be a tool of the wealthy and a haven for most stupid people.
One doesn't expect profound thinking or perhaps even thought from the likes of Hank Williams, Jr., and I've always been inclined to disregard political pronouncements from our professional entertainers of any stripe, whether they foolishly volunteer their opinions or are egged on by eager members of the media. But there are those from whom we may expect something approaching the ability to think, and among those are such as judges and those running for national office. The recent statements of a county judge in Texas who will remain unnamed here (primarily because I find it difficult to resist the urge to make play with that name) and those of candidate Akin cause me to believe that expectation is unfounded.
There is an honorable intellectual tradition in Conservative thought. But in this country it seems to have been eclipsed by a tradition which is virulently anti-intellectual, anti-reason, anti-science and anti-that-which-is-not-white-American and conventionally religious and anti-intellectual, anti-reason and anti-science. This must be disturbing to any intelligent Conservative, as in our most unfortunate two-party system it means for the most part that those intelligent Conservatives who exist must necessarily associate themselves with members of the Republican Party, who seem intent on demonstrating that they are, mostly, stupid people.
In this farcical presidential election, we have an incumbent president who I think would in normal circumstances be quite vulnerable. However, the association of most stupid people with the Republican Party may very well manage to make a president who has, I think it's fair to say, been incompetent look like the only reasonable alternative to government by ignorant buffoons. It is a horrible situation to be in at a critical time.
Conservatism is generally typified by a caution regarding change, particularly change implemented by government. However, it can be a viable political philosophy only if it can recognize change which has already taken place. The Republican Party seems to have considerable trouble accepting such change; in the status of women, gays, religion and the so-called minorities which will soon enough be a majority. It seems convinced that the majority of the American people are ersatz versions of Bocephus, Pat Robertson and the enormously wealthy. This simply is untrue now, and will be staggeringly untrue in the future.
If a thoughtful Conservatism is to survive, it must disassociate itself from the Know-Nothings, fundamentalists and tycoons who have become the representatives of the Right in these dark times. It must champion reason and freedom and the rule of law. The rule of law includes in this nation a neutral stance regarding religion. It should neither encourage nor discourage it. It should not sanction the imposition of religious views nor should it sanction the prohibition of religious views. Simply put, religion is not the law.
A thoughtful Conservatism as a political force may turn out to be impossible in our two-party system, but I think it would be desirable if a party was formed which could support the idea of limited government and individual liberty and yet manage not to be a tool of the wealthy and a haven for most stupid people.
Sunday, August 19, 2012
The Increasingly Curious Case of Julian Assange
I wouldn't have chosen a balcony from which to declaim; too many associations with the histrionics of Il Duce and Der Fuhrer. But it may be that his choices as to the place from which to make a public statement were limited under the circumstances, so we must forgive Mr. Assange for this oddity. But I think it did make him look rather preposterous, and may play to the claims made by some, including former comrades at WikiLeaks, that he is suffering from megalomania.
But he has been granted asylum by a sovereign nation, and although that nation apparently is not known for its tolerance and keeps a very tight leash on its own media and so seems a rather inappropriate place for someone with Assange's pretensions to petition, it presumably has certain rights under international law, including that of granting asylum. It also, I think, has certain rights with respect to the inviolability of its embassy. If Great Britain threatened that status, that is also curious, as would be a law which allows a host country to decide an embassy may be invaded under certain circumstances. If we are to have law in such matters, it would seem to be fundamentally contrary to that law to allow host countries to unilaterally determine whether it will apply in any given case.
I think it would also be curious if what Assange says is true, i.e. that the United States is engaged in some kind of conspiracy with Sweden and Great Britain to whisk him away and punish him for revealing information it deems secret. I don't think that because I believe these countries would not engage in a conspiracy if they thought it necessary; I am cynical regarding the intent and conduct of countries, including my own.
However, I like to credit those who make decisions for governments with a certain degree of intelligence--enough to know that extraditing Assange to Sweden merely for the purpose of turning him over to the United States would so discredit them that it simply would not be worthwhile, and would turn him into a martyr to more people than he is currently, if indeed there are any but himself who hold the opinion that he is one. Also, I doubt that if he is a threat, he is much of a threat, any longer. I would assume that wherever he should go and wherever he should be, he'll be very closely watched, and would think that if he goes to Ecuador his effectiveness as a conduit for secret information is seriously compromised. And because of this and because he is not a sympathetic or heroic figure (regardless of whether he ever was one), I doubt he will be sought out as the repository for such information.
I've reviewed the legal proceedings and opinions issued by the courts of the United Kingdom regarding the validity and enforcement of the warrant by which it is demanded he be sent to Sweden, and admit to some unease as the interpretation made of the applicable treaty is that such warrants may be issued without judicial review. That would seem to me to be dangerous, and I hope the U.S. has not signed on to anything similar. So I think a concern regarding the proceedings is legitimate, in this respect. I'm uncertain, though, that there is any point to any authority pushing this much further.
I think the U.K. cannot reasonably be expected to do more than it has done as far as its obligations to enforce the warrant are concerned. I don't think it can be said to be required to storm the embassy, for example, or otherwise physically prevent the grant of asylum from taking its course. The blame would fall on Ecuador if blame is assigned.
As can be inferred easily enough, I don't like Assange. I don't find self-appointed guardians of the human race admirable; I suspect them of megalomania, in fact. Even his old friends are condemning him for a variety of reasons, and think he's destroyed WikiLeaks. Because I question the viability of his claims of a great international conspiracy I think that if he asserts there is no basis for the allegations made against him in Sweden, he should contest them, formally. Once one goes to a country, one should expect to be subject to its laws while there, and not simply to be able to run away when they are applied.
But I think prolonging this situation at this point ascribes to him more importance than he has, and is a waste of resources.
But he has been granted asylum by a sovereign nation, and although that nation apparently is not known for its tolerance and keeps a very tight leash on its own media and so seems a rather inappropriate place for someone with Assange's pretensions to petition, it presumably has certain rights under international law, including that of granting asylum. It also, I think, has certain rights with respect to the inviolability of its embassy. If Great Britain threatened that status, that is also curious, as would be a law which allows a host country to decide an embassy may be invaded under certain circumstances. If we are to have law in such matters, it would seem to be fundamentally contrary to that law to allow host countries to unilaterally determine whether it will apply in any given case.
I think it would also be curious if what Assange says is true, i.e. that the United States is engaged in some kind of conspiracy with Sweden and Great Britain to whisk him away and punish him for revealing information it deems secret. I don't think that because I believe these countries would not engage in a conspiracy if they thought it necessary; I am cynical regarding the intent and conduct of countries, including my own.
However, I like to credit those who make decisions for governments with a certain degree of intelligence--enough to know that extraditing Assange to Sweden merely for the purpose of turning him over to the United States would so discredit them that it simply would not be worthwhile, and would turn him into a martyr to more people than he is currently, if indeed there are any but himself who hold the opinion that he is one. Also, I doubt that if he is a threat, he is much of a threat, any longer. I would assume that wherever he should go and wherever he should be, he'll be very closely watched, and would think that if he goes to Ecuador his effectiveness as a conduit for secret information is seriously compromised. And because of this and because he is not a sympathetic or heroic figure (regardless of whether he ever was one), I doubt he will be sought out as the repository for such information.
I've reviewed the legal proceedings and opinions issued by the courts of the United Kingdom regarding the validity and enforcement of the warrant by which it is demanded he be sent to Sweden, and admit to some unease as the interpretation made of the applicable treaty is that such warrants may be issued without judicial review. That would seem to me to be dangerous, and I hope the U.S. has not signed on to anything similar. So I think a concern regarding the proceedings is legitimate, in this respect. I'm uncertain, though, that there is any point to any authority pushing this much further.
I think the U.K. cannot reasonably be expected to do more than it has done as far as its obligations to enforce the warrant are concerned. I don't think it can be said to be required to storm the embassy, for example, or otherwise physically prevent the grant of asylum from taking its course. The blame would fall on Ecuador if blame is assigned.
As can be inferred easily enough, I don't like Assange. I don't find self-appointed guardians of the human race admirable; I suspect them of megalomania, in fact. Even his old friends are condemning him for a variety of reasons, and think he's destroyed WikiLeaks. Because I question the viability of his claims of a great international conspiracy I think that if he asserts there is no basis for the allegations made against him in Sweden, he should contest them, formally. Once one goes to a country, one should expect to be subject to its laws while there, and not simply to be able to run away when they are applied.
But I think prolonging this situation at this point ascribes to him more importance than he has, and is a waste of resources.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)