For Whom the Bell Tolls...

Time marches on.

A good friend of mine sent me an email saying that she had a heavy heart because Saddam Hussein was executed. She went on to say that she found the whole situation just "wrong." I was surprised by this as she had always been one of the most vocal supporters of the war and clearly, Saddam was the face on that war. But, as always, she has made me think and here, however unworthy, is the result.

Did Saddam have to die? Obviously, a person's answer to this question depends on his background and his feelings. Despite the hyperbole, most of the time, a person's logical argument for or against the death penalty are crafted to suit a feeling. So instead of traversing into that quagmire, let's just avoid it entirely. In a space where there is rule of law, the question of the validity of the death penalty matters. In the case of international relations where the law of the jungle more readily applies, death is the consequence for losing; good or bad, deserved or undeserved.

Having said all that, Saddam needed to die. He needed to die because he was a symbol of the old way. I once got to hear a young couple speak about their horrible experience at the hands of a serial rapist/murderer. Unlike most couples who have experienced such trauma together, this one was still together and still very much in love. An experienced NYPD detective remarked on this and asked them why they thought they were still together. The couple looked at each other with confidence and love and said emphatically, "Because he's dead." Saddam need to die so his people could move on. We, in the West, cannot understand the impression he made on the psyche of his people. As long as he was still alive, the chance of his return loomed large in the back of everyone's mind. And everyone knew what happens when you cross Saddam.

This would have been much cleaner if he had died in his spider hole. Another friend of mine had this conversation as well. The trial was a joke and diminished the presence and authority of the convening commission as well as giving Saddam a platform from which to speak. Perhaps in legalistic terms, it's only fair that he be allowed to speak in his defense but in realpolitik? The guy needed to be silenced early because it would have saved lives.

Machiavelli said that the hardest thing in the world to do was to bring about a new order of things because the new way will only have lukewarm supporters-- who have gained nothing yet-- and highly motived detractors-- who stand to lose privilege and position. With the Sunni minority, it's not surprising that we have such a dedicated insurgency. They are fighting for their very lives. There is no reason for them to believe that a Shia majority would treat them any better than they were treated. The Bush administration in it's naivete honestly believed that democracy was the cure-all.They had no understanding of the underlying tensions that Saddam held in check.

Since his capture, those tensions have flared into a full-blown religious war. I don't like to use the term civil war because that's not what's happening. This war between Sunni and Shia isn't powered by an difference of ideas about the nature of governance. It's driven by religious tensions going back hundreds of years. It's safe to say that any government sprung from the body politic of the Shia or Sunni would have at it's base a system of laws based on the Sharia. That being the case, "civil relations" aren't the issue. This is a religious war and we must treat it as such.

But for this reason, I feel that the Iraqi Government made a mistake by not trumpeting the execution more. I think it should have been held publically. What better way to show that you are in charge than the public hanging of the previous ruler? Men like Saddam should die publically because it is the Public whom they've harmed. They do not deserve the dignity of a private execution.

I believe, though, that the relative privacy of his execution had very little to do with his dignity. It was acquiesence to Arab pride-- a silly and despicable idea. Some folks believe that it was to reduce the potential violence. There's no reason to think that would happen. There might be a temporary spike in violence but how much worse can it get? The civil/religious war cannot escalate because neither side has access to bigger weapon systems such a tanks or jets. Sure you can blow a bunch of people up but you cannot positively achieve power.

Let me say something about Arab pride. When I was in China, I got to know the concept of "face." At first, I confused it with honor but I was soon to learn that they were very different things. I wrote to a mentor of mine of this curious cultural phenomenon and he wrote back a brilliant response. He said that face was a content-less version of honor. Face is only concerned with appearing good, not being good. With face, there is no though to what is naturally better as with honor. This is what I feel about Arab pride. Much of the turmoil between people in day to day society occurs because most folks have a very different vision of themselves internally than others on the outside see. So a person goes through his day thinking that he is this type of person and should be treated accordingly. Everybody else sees a different sort of person and that being the only thing they have to work with, treat the person thusly. This is the cause of so much bullshit trouble because one party always feels he has been insulted or hasn't been given his due and everybody on the outside can't understand why. But real growth and maturity is integrity between who you are on the inside and what you appear to be on the outside. People who don't have that stumble through their lives hypersensitive to every insult.

This is Arab Pride. It is built on nothing but the idea that they are owed something. It is the pride built on the accomplishments of better men hundreds of years ago. As a culture, what do they have to be proud of in the last hundred years? One only has to look at the Asian countries to see what is possible. No, Saddam's private execution was a salve to wounded Arab pride which means to war but can only hurt unarmed civilians and police officers who mean to help. It makes me truly sick.

My solution to the ME problem is simple. Divide and conquer. I would make Turkey the offer of full EU membership if they roll into Syria and depose Assad. Their military is capable of such an action and it would positively prove that they are on our side. If they could not muster the will... well, that would tell us something too.

I don't like to celebrate a man's death. Seems kind of macabre to me. But if I can drink to Arafat's demise, I can surely drink to Saddam's execution. And I assure you, I will.

Hostis and Inimicus

Since arriving in San Francisco, I've been on a few dates with some of the locals. This hasn't been easy because my health hasn't been so good but as an unfortunate possessor of the Kavorka, it is my cross to bear. I'm a social guy when I want to be and I've been on a ton of dates so I know I'm a pretty charming dinner companion despite my inability to be a good boyfriend. Interestingly enough, of the half a dozen women I've entertained since arriving in August, all of them have ended things because I've been too conservative. This is not a guess. They've all come out and said it. In fact, two of them said how they could not face their friends with me in tow.

Now, I've never thought of myself as particularly conservative. I suppose I do believe in smaller government as a rule but I don't think that this is what the ladies have found to intolerable. I'm not against gay marriage. I'm pro choice. Okay, I'm not for a nationalized health care system but only because I've never seen it work effectively in any country. Whatever "conservative" views that I have are well thought out and the result of much effort. I never take a policy position because it feels right. In fact, I'm always very suspicious of my own motives when I'm too comfortable with an idea.

Now I suppose they could be using my political views as an excuse. Maybe they find me repellant and are just trying to be nice. I assure you that this is not the case. All of them have made it quite clear that it was my political views alone that disqualified me from further dating.

But the truth of the matter is that their discomfort with associating with me had nothing to do with my political views writ large. I'm sure most of them wouldn't know Hobbes if he pounced on them. It comes down to one thing or person rather. President Bush. They hate him so much that the mere fact that I don't is enough to disqualify me. That's amazing. How can one man generate so much raw frothing hate?

While I do not agree with all of President Bush's policy decisions-- most notably the creation of Homeland Security-- I don't think he's a bad guy. And I think it's terribly childish to think that folks who disagree with you are bad merely because they disagree.

None of the modern Western languages have a different word for public enemy and private enemy. This presents a problem in our cognition because it is only through language that we form our higher thoughts. Take, for example, the Latin words "hostis" and "inimicus." "Hostis" refers to a public enemy-- like the Japanese during WWII-- while "inimicus" refers to a private enemy such as a political adversary. Whatever you make of this distinction, it is enough to draw it. The Roman citizen of his day would never think of elevating someone he personally loathes to "hostis" status simply because he hated him. It would make no sense.

But people do that here in San Francisco. They have elevated hatred of President Bush to the point where it affects their personal lives. What kind of insanity is that?

Something else I've realized is that this town in overwhelmingly close-minded. Don't believe me? Try to engage anyone in a conversation about the merits of gay marriage. It will quickly devolve into ad hominem attacks.

The liberals and socialist here all uniformly hate religion on which they blame all of society's ills. But what the citizens of San Francisco don't see is that their zeal makes them the Faithful of a different sort. They take things on faith as much as religious people do. Hiding behind science or statistics when you don't really understand them isn't intellectually honest. Unless you've done the work yourself, you're always taking somebody's word for it.

Man likes certainty and will pray to all sorts of "Gods" to get it. Me? I'm comfortable with ambiguity and I don't believe science has all the answers, at least to the questions I find interesting.

Chasing Happiness

Recently, a good friend of mine sent me a piece about happiness. The gist of it was that when people chase happiness, they usually end of making themselves less happy due to poor decision making. It was an interesting premise and so I spent some time thinking about it. The first most obvious question to ask was if I'm happy? Yes, undoubtedly. Could I be happier? Well, at any given moment I could be intermittently happier but as a mean? No, I don't think I could be happier.

I suppose being happy means different things to different people. Given what I've seen in the world, I guess I set my bar pretty low. I have a roof over my head, plenty of food to eat, good friends, capable medical care and nobody's trying to kill me as far as I know. When I look at my fellow San Franciscans, I would guess that most, if not all of them, set their baseline for happiness considerably higher.

Some folks say that to set the bar low is to pave the way for underachievement. I suppose an argument could be made for that but I've always been pretty easy to keep happy and I don't think I can be accused of underachieving by anyone's meter.

Seneca said that a mindless bustling about is not industry. It is the sign of a hunted mind. I think that in our desire to achieve happiness, we are instead hunted by it. Instead of simply being happy, we ask ourselves how we could be happier. Instead of becoming a condition of peace, it has become our master.

When I was a teenager, I caught a beating from my father from reading the Tao Te Ching. My father insisted that the work was for men who had already accomplished something in life and could afford to be content. I didn't much understand the book, but I disagreed with him vehemently which then led to the beating. While I don't agree with his pedagoical style, I understand his fear. He confused happiness with contentment.

What's the difference? I think most people chase things in their lives because they think possessing those things will make them happy.

To quote Jay-Z:
How do you equate your pain?
Would it all go away if I bought you a Range?
I got two or three of those, nothing's gonna change.
If nothing else, you've got to live with yourself.

People achieve awards, diplomas and such for the same reason. I'm as guilty as the next guy for this. I thought, "Maybe if I get achieve one more thing, my father will love me." Or whatever. But I finally learned that his issues had nothing to do with the plaques on my wall. I could fill another wall and it would change nothing.

At the same time, I thought that my achievements might take me to a level of happiness that I've never experienced.

The Zen master walked into the main hall and said to his congregated students that one of their fellow students had achieved Enlightenment. After he left the hall, the students all ran to find their fellow classmate. The finally found him standing underneath a tree atop a small hill. Breathlessly, they asked, "Master has told us that you have achieved Enlightenment. How do you feel?"

The newly Enlightened student answered, "As shitty as ever."

I guess what I'm trying to say is that Happiness is less about pursuit and more about recognizing the blessings that you have.

I am truly blessed. I am embarrassed by my riches because surely, I do not deserve them.
'