If we are talking of existential angst, then I can only say that at present I chose to go with the more literal definition:
existential:
\Ex`is*ten"tial\, a. Having existence. [Archaic] --Bp. Barlow
Which is to say, lately my work existence has been hell, I am looking for a new job, and I am generally surly about the whole experience. I wish I could say this has not lessened my recent efforts toward becoming more involved in events beyond the tip of my nose, or that it has not reduced my ability to strive for more esoteric self improvement.
It has, though. My capacity for dealing with crap has not expanded to meet demand. I am sure that I will work things out. In the meantime, this post is mostly an excuse to transplant a comment from a previous thread...
Part of the problem with not talking seriously with people around me about the state of things is that I loose sight of the fact that feeling conflicted is a normal state of being in the world today. This comic got me thinking...
A feeling of internal conflict is simply a sign that I have emotions unreconciled with my logical understanding of any given thing. This is normal; we are emotional creatures. The trouble comes when I do not explore this contradiction. Our culture is brutally harsh toward anyone who appears to "waffle", "dither" or "flip-flop", and I think that this attitude is a steaming load.
In order to come to any sort of peace with myself, I must be willing to challenge my own assumptions, and continue to do so until there is some parity between my subconscious and conscious. Until I achieve gestalt.
This does not happen easily in a vacuum. The fundamental ethics, morals, and values that we rely upon to achieve this reconciliation are meaningless without community as a frame of reference. But we don't want our peers to think we do not have it all figured out, that we might wish or find need to redefine these very things. So, instead, we look to the media to give us our frame of reference. We note "opinion polls" and "editorial" comments. Fine as far as it goes, but it is a one way street. I can not ask a talking head, "If you feel like so about this, how do you rationalize that?" We get no opportunity to check the consistency of the logic, or plumb the depths of the feeling.
The point here, is that we are all in the same boat. My neighbor is just as confused as I am. I will make an effort to tell others about my conflicts and they might tell me about theirs. Together, we may take a small step closer to clarity.
Many think that "duck tape" is a misnomer for "duct tape", but this is not true.
Whatever you call it, how long do you think it will be before someone asphyxiates while attempting to follow this advice?
I have been working on an annotation of the State of the Union address, attempting to call out with references all of the rehtoric and misinformation.
Minutes ago, though, I was given this link, that does exactly what I was after, only far more effectively.
I trashed my effort. Read this, follow the links, there is a lot of very valuable information here.
Next on the list of things I seem to be the only one freaking out about...
We are radically and rapidly changing our policy regarding nuclear first strike. It is starting to look like a pretty good idea to the current administration, especially against foes who do not have the capability to respond in kind.
We are seeing rationalizations, recriminations, repercussions... and we haven't actually hauled off and used one yet. I know, you think I am overreacting.
Let's see...
The story begins a long time ago, and has many twists and turns. In short, we had a lot of really big nasty nukes that no one wanted to use. MAD, and all of that. There is much history and debate around everything that brought us to the time of the Soviet break up, and I will not try to cover it here. Ample resources exist, should you wish to refresh your memory.
Let me instead begin at the beginning of the end. I'll start in May, 2001, when G. W. gave a speech at the National Defense University. Bush took this opportunity to test market some of the administration's new ideas. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty? The Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty? We don't need those any more, they're old-school. The big ICBMs? Let's continue to phase those out, and instead really light a fire under the development of smaller nukes that we can actually get away with using. Retaliation? Let's create a magic umbrella that will protect us. This speech was formulated using the standard rhetoric, and there was some reasonable doubt as to whether any of it would really come to pass.
Fast forward through most of a year of debate and further rhetoric, and we have the Congressionally mandated Nuclear Posture Review. Released to Congress by the Bush administration in January 2002, the NPR calls for new types of nuclear weapons, proposes new roles for their use, and emphasizes a strengthened commitment to building new nuclear weapons. Now it is official. It is policy.
We are going to use our nuclear capability to fight wars, not sit around and gather dust.
There is plenty of insightful commentary on this madness.
On December 11 2002, Donald Rumsfeld sent Bush a memorandum asking for authority to place James Ellis, commander of STRATCOM, in charge of the full range of "strategic" warfare options to combat terrorist states and organizations. In January 2003 Bush approved the proposal.
This means that one entity now makes decisions on deployment of both conventional and nuclear weaponry, in the same context.
There is not much more to say. If you are not disturbed yet, teach me that trick. I'll finish up by referring to the immediate likelihood that we will be cranking it up for real, sometime soon.
I am disturbed.
Of the various really bad things that hardly anyone seems to be paying attention to, this one is high on the list. Depleted Uranium is an intentionally misleading name for U238. Depleted Uranium is what is left over when U234 and U235 (fissionable material, the kind used in bombs) are removed from naturally occurring uranium. The remaining U238 is still radioactive. It is both chemically and radiologically toxic.
Why does this matter? In the Gulf War, the U.S. fired almost a million DU rounds, leaving a battlefield littered with 1,400 wrecked radioactive Iraqi tanks, crawled over by victorious GI's who were breathing in contaminated dust. We have dumped tons of this stuff on various countries, poisoning them for all inhabitants for generations to come, and are preparing to deliver the biggest load ever in just the first few days of the conflict with Iraq. This is a WMD by any definition. As always I ask, why isn't everyone talking about it?
*sigh* I don't know. Read on for the this and that of DU.
Why we like it...
A DU round, is made from the leftover U238. The killing punch comes from the solid depleted uranium metal rod or jacket in the shells, bombs, warheads, and bullets. The DU is extremely dense (1.7 times denser than lead), conveying a lot of kinetic energy to penetrate armor. Further, U238 is a natural pyrophoric material - it flashes to a superheated cloud on impact. All of this allows DU weapons to cut through conventional armor like the proverbial hot knife through butter. We also make extensive use of U238 as armor on our own vehicles, rendering them much more resistant to more traditional armor piercing weapons. Neat, huh?
Why it really sucks...
The DOD is fond of explaining that U238 is about .7 times as radioactive as naturally occurring uranium. No problem, right? Well, if it was encountered in concentrations equal and forms similar to that of naturally occurring uranium, this would be true. In reality though, there are several factors that make DU extremely nasty to friend, foe, and civilian alike.
Sitting in a DU armored vehicle next to a rack of DU projectiles is arguably not really a problem. The problems start with the fighting. When a U238 round hits a hard target, a significant portion of the U238 payload is aerosolized. The same thing happens when U238 armored vehicles burn. These aerosolized particles can be inhaled, and ingested. They are borne away on the wind and remain in the environment for a very long time. We now have a heavy metal and a source of destructive radiation in one, nicely prepared for introduction into our systems.
This is really bad stuff. It is a WMD that can continue to inflict harm for generations after it is deployed. We like it a lot.
Tell your neighbor.
If the media tells us what to think, who tells them?
The answer to this question is not simple. There is no secret society of overlords or cabal of merciless tyrants. No single tightly knit group can be trotted out to take the blame.
The problem, though, exists. Everybody understands this, right?
No one claiming to pay attention would suggest that the news we get is not filtered and biased according to some very specific agendas.
That is what I thought. But apparently not. People with whom I talk keep patiently explaining that there is no great insidious plot to control public opinion.
I'm just taking this stuff a little bit too far.
Well. Ignoring for a moment the straw man of "great insidious plot", let's talk a short walk through some of the more documented instances of news agency "self-censorship".
Follow me...
The biggie here is CNN, Ted Turner's all propaganda network. The most famous memos date back to late 2001, when CNN wanted to make darn sure its reporters knew what side they were on.
There are plenty of examples elsewhere, too. On an October 10, 2002 conference call with national security adviser Condoleeza Rice, executives from ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox and CNN reportedly acceded to her "suggestion" that any future taped statements from Al Quaida be "abridged," and any potentially "inflammatory" language removed before broadcast. After failing to successfully pressure Al Jazeera into easing up on its irresponsible reporting of all sides of the issue, Condy went after those who know on which side their bread is buttered.
I tend to give the reporters, even the talking heads, the benefit of the doubt. I figure that if you are going to get worked up, do it over oppressive top-down policy enabled by the vast conglomerates that are our "media outlets". Others are not so generous.
I don't really have anywhere to go with this. The issue is too big to accomplish anything meaningful with a blog entry. There is good journalism out there. Some of it is even American. There are lots of ideas about what to do now.
In the end, this is just a rant, and a rambling one at that. I would just like the problem to be recognized.
There is no "great insidious plot". There is a great insidious reluctance to seek truth and understanding. If we are not seeking it, there is no profit in providing it. Who should be trotted out to take the blame? You. Me.
I am going to be using this blog, among other things, to do my part. With any luck I will get better at it. I hope I am only out of practice. In the worst case, I have to believe that rambling is better than silence.
Ramble on.