Friday, June 24, 2005


Do you know what I'm tired of? The false dualism everywhere. It's really getting to me. Everything is good or evil, if you're not for us you're against us, if you're not "American" by agreeing to us in every single item you are "traitorous and anti-American". Then there is the unGodly accusations for those who are not literal Bible sniffers.

There are reasons for this way of acting, and they are many. It may be just an easy way for humans to think. It certainly contributes to anger and hatred and prepares us all for a civil war, and though nobody probably wants a civil war I have a feeling that Rove wants to keep us at the edge of it because that will keep him in power, with a little technical help. And false dualism is the answer one gives when attacked by another false dualistic snippet. But the dualism is still almost always wrong.

Take the debate about the Iraq war. I deeply believe that it was wrong to invade Iraq, especially because it was done on the basis of lies and at a time when we had a real enemy to focus on elsewhere. But this does NOT mean that I want the invasion to fail, that I want people to die in Iraq. And this is what I hear when I debate the issue on the many internets. Why is it so hard to expand the little thinking organ into something that can accept three or more alternatives simultaneously? Why is it so hard to accept evidence of all sorts before making up ones mind?

I spent years debating various political issues carefully, moderately, using all those rules about not alienating the opponent, about seeking common ground, about carefully proving my point. All I got for it was ridicule and scorn and lots of saliva sprayed in my face. That's one reason for this blog: the saliva doesn't carry. At first I thought that a blog would be a way of making my points somehow clearer but I soon learned that the form of presenting the arguments makes no difference. We are somehow mired in the world of false dualisms and if I want to participate I have to point out the errors in one extreme end point and root for the other.

To go back to the Iraq question: I didn't want a war there because it was based on false grounds yet real people died in it. - This, by the way, is one of the few cases where dualism is real: you kill or you don't - I also didn't want us to go there because theocracy is the only immediate alternative for those countries and theocracies are terrible torture devices for women and I care about stuff like that. But once we invaded Iraq and destroyed a lot of it we can't just drop it like a hot potato. We should leave as soon as possible, yes, but we should at least try to leave a relatively acceptable administration in place, one which can delay the onset of civil war a little.

Leaving is not the same as encouraging international terrorism. We encouraged that by going to Iraq in the first place, and it doesn't make much difference what we do next. If we leave they won. If we stay they won because we are colonial tyrants. So I wouldn't base that decision on the "war on terror". I'd base it on trying to kill any more people. That, in the long run, could be good against terrorism, too.

Ramblings, ramblings. It's Friday and I had a hard working week. My muse has taken off with his tattooed friends.