Concerning one of Doc's questions --I take Patrick's "we all know" to refer to something like what Socrates called the doxa, or what Delany calls the dominant discourse, or maybe what Atrios calls the CW (conventional wisdom). It's a belief that is so widespread that "everybody" recognizes it, that politicians and advertisers can count on its appeal, that to suggest it's not so is to swim against the mainstream, to engage in "politics", or to contradict "common sense." Doc's "Americans like to believe that we're different" makes a point similar to Patrick's. The conviction of "plucky defiance" is indeed one of "our storylines," and a very persistent one.
You know what else people do in order to ridicule Kucinich? Every time they mention his name, they put the Homer Simpson interjection, "D-OH", after it. Even his soi-disant supporters have been known to do that. What gives?
"Exactly how much of Dick's 'depth' has to do with his brilliant answers to questions of philosophy and epistemology?" To be fair, MMG talks about "examining these themes" and "considering them," not providing "brilliant answers." Still, I would suggest that PKD is not the twentieth century's great ontological thinker, and that it's a mistake to respond to a "What if the perceived world is illusory" story by asking "How Phildickian is it?" or complaining that it substitutes martial arts action for the Phildickian virtues.
To me, Dick's "depth" has to do with the extent to which I empathize with his characters and their needs and anxieties: I recognize the feelings that are elicited by the entropic, ontologically uncertain worlds they live in and indeed see how modern life can give rise to a sense of decay and unreality. There's "titillation and decoration" too, of course --that's part of what distinguishes Dick's sf from his Naturalist novels of the Fifties-- but the stories being decorated are deeper in the social or psychological realm than the philosophical.
There was a Twilight Zone dramatization of Harlan's "One Life, Furnished in Early Poverty," toward the beginning of which a Hollywood actress says to the protagonist in the most incredulous/contemptuous tone you've ever heard, "Why are you going to Ohio????" As a native of the state in question, I was initially affronted, then more and more amused as time went on. I mean, there are some nifty things in the northern half of Ohio: Cleveland Heights, Maureen McHugh . . . um, I'm sure there's a third one somewhere.
Welcome back, PNH. Missed your bloggage.
Unsettling fallout: I received an email from my racist uncle on the subject in which he tied De Genova's hateful statement to the fact that he studies rap music and Latino cultures, which evidently started him on "the path away from good sense." Didn't blame the university or suggest that malleable young minds would be deformed, though --that't the job of the know-nothings at the Post.
I've been a little uneasy for a while with Alterman's statements on this issue; hence I'm glad he put "the antiwar movement, such as it was" in there and made it clear that he was talking about the project to prevent the war from happening as it has/is. I didn't see the movement as resting only on the possibility of preventing the war, however hopefully and intensely we tried. The project of continuing to oppose the conduct of the war (particularly if it's conducted as horribly as we were promised it would be) and to expose its consequences is central to the construction of that better future: as people on threads herein have been remarking, it has to be done with the goal of persuading and informing people, rather than celebrating our outrage and bitterness (although there are discussion fora where one can do that too, I think; and creative celebrations are always exciting to read). So I'll try to resist the temptation just to watch, and instead to share my horror in an informed manner when I can. I think we can count on the liberal blogosphere to do the same.
I guess I'm stating the obvious here, but that's one of your readers' answers to "What do you think?" at this tense moment.
Oh, I also think that anyone who flames Atrios is beneath contempt.
Patrick--thank you for those links. I think the Silber link that Henley cites, and the comments thereon, make the best case --particularly when they remind us that the Administration has already arrogated the right to make "detainees" of U.S. citizens. It's quite terrifying that Silber has to remind Americans ("libertarians," no less) that there's a difference between a suspect and a criminal: I guess the Ed Meese theory of jurisprudence has won after all these years. Even more frightening is the Balko link that Henley gives us, in which people say we should be like the Jordanians and do terrible things to the families of captured suspects. Since when, to paraphrase Robert Byrd, are the most oppressive Arab nations our role models? Is it really our goal to differ from them in name only?
Avedon--a friend of mine who's extensively studied the literature pertaining to human rights abuses in U.S.-supported Latin American regimes (think Timmerman's Prisoner without a Name, Cell without a Number), says that there are other points to torture than the one you aptly mention. Traditionally, states that have institutionalized torture have used that practice to isolate, discredit, and silence individuals, and by extension to eliminate dissent, opposition, and the very conceivability of a system different from the one that the authoritarian leaders have created. Sounds like the Soviet Union, right? But note the reports that those post-9/11 detainees who sought to sue the government or to petition for habeas corpus were the ones most quickly deported to Amman, Damascus, etc. Sounds to me as though that might be an attempt to eliminate the inconvenience of "opposition."
I more or less share Avram's heart/head divide --I can say that I shed no tears when terrorist John Salvi was killed in prison and still assert that prisons should maintain safeguards against inmates killing each other. How one feels about an individual differs from how one thinks about a policy; that's what civil liberties and human rights are about. And didn't someone once claim those rights for "all men" --that is to say, not just U.S. citizens?
Here's a passage from Bruce Jackson's article on Alan Dershowitz. Question number two is especially important, as those police precincts in the U.S. who have gotten in trouble for institutionalizing torture do indeed seem to have a prediliction for torturing members of a specific group --
I have a whole bunch of questions I wish Mike Wallace had asked Alan Dershowitz about his torture program. Here are a few of them:
-- What if the one person who you think knows the secret is a 12-year-old girl? How much torture is appropriate for a 12-year-old girl who might possibly know something really bad and won't tell? Or who keeps saying, no matter what you do to her, "I don't know what you're talking about?"
97Is the torture any less legitimate if the torturer loves his work, particularly when it's certain kinds of people, like 12-year-old girls who won't fess up?
97How much torture is appropriate before you decide that maybe this person doesn't know anything?
97How much torture is appropriate before you decide that the person is starting to make stuff up?
97How do you undo the harm you did when you realize you tortured the wrong woman?
I hope you forgive my prolixity --the topic needs to be discussed; and the folks standing up for human rights need to be celebrated.
| Year | Number of comments posted |
|---|---|
| 2003 | 9 |
Total: 9 comments. View all these comments on a single page.
The most recent 20 comments posted to Electrolite by Mr Ripley:
Show all comments by Mr Ripley.