An expanding circle of compassion

I just finished watching The Cove, the film that last week won the 2010 Oscar for featured documentary. (Trailer can be seen here).God bless bittorrent!

It is about the cruel, and completely unnecessary, killing of dolphins in Japan. A very bloody affair.

The film got me thinking about the idea of an expanding circle of compassion. How, at least in the Western world, ethical and political thinking has moved -in baby steps admittedly- to include an ever growing group of beings into the ethical and political realm. Slaves, minorities, women, people of color, the disabled, etc...very slowly, but surely, have been included into a realm that approximates at least some kind of legal equality and worth. Battles are still to be fought, but still, at least the moral high-ground is held by those calling for equal and fair treatment.

Yet, every one of those struggles for inclusion were fiercely opposed by those in power. By what Obama would call 'the status quo'. Rights are always seen as a zero-sum game. The more rights 'they' have, the less rights I would end up with; that seems to be the logic. More for them means less for me.

Why is it so difficult to discard seeing rights as a zero-sum game? One would like to believe that the more rights any group has, the more one's own rights would be solidified. But that is obviously not the case.

Which leads me to The Cove. Do dolphins, or any other animal for that matter, having right to a little more humane treatment from us...does that really mean alienation from any of our human rights? Do dolphins having the right NOT to be senselessly massacred, diminishes our rights in any way or form? I am not talking about giving animals the absurd positive right to whatever, education or voting, but about bestowing them -at least- with the negative right of not being massacred unnecessarily.

I, personally, would like to expand the circle of animal rights way faster. Yet, I understand that ultimately the best way to have a solid movement in the right direction is -unfortunately- to proceed slowly, not in a revolutionary manner. But it is the case that regarding animals and the environment, the idea or gut feeling that the more for them means the less for us, is deeply rooted.

If you can, watch The Cove; it is an eye opening experience about how our perceived rights can degenerate so easily in thoughtless tyranny and senseless abuse towards those beings that are still almost completely outside our circle of compassion.

The Varieties of Hippie-ism II

There are times when it looks like the political extremes (right and left) end up touching each other, making contact, in a kind of perverse feedback loop.

I suppose this logic is mostly visible in behavioral terms. While defending their own unique agendas, there is indeed commonality among political extremes; for in their radicalness they become intolerant in their quest for what Stanley Kubrick called a 'purity of essence'. In other words: extreme left and extreme right differ in content, but they commune in form.

David Brooks goes a little beyond this line of argument in his column of March the 5th, 2010. Arguing that the Tea-Party (or multiple Tea Parties) and the Hippies movement of the 1960's share not only the methods or tactics used to bring attention to their ideological positions, but -more important- a common belief in what he terms 'mass innocence', the 'assumption that the people are pure and virtuous and that evil is introduced into society by corrupt elites and rotten authority structures'.

I would not know how to argue against that point directly. Yes, they do have some things in common formally speaking. Yet, I feel there is something quite off in this line of argument. In fact, I was thinking exactly the opposite thing just yesterday evening.

As an intellectual exercise it is interesting to juxtapose both 'movements'. This exercise might teach us about political tactics and theater, how to deal with these radicalized groups, etc. But, still, we have a political and moral responsibility to see things for what they really are.

In the specific case of the hippies and the tea-parties there are two fundamental difference that Mr. Brooks is not considering:

First, what William James called 'morbid-mindedness' and 'healthy-mindedness'. It is the difference, to put it in regular American English, between being a born-again Christian and being a New-Age mystic.

Second, the Tea Parties are a mob-y movement that stems from economic resentment, while the hippies came -for the most part- from the privileged classes of America.

Hippies invented New Age. The Tea Party phenomenon is inseparable from the Christianist movement.

The Christianist movement is morbid: they are obsessed with evil, evil-doers, Mexicans and sin. The world as such is inherently threatening for them, and force should be used to curb the evil out there.

The hippies, well, they were about peace and love. Remember? This is what James calls healthy-mindedness.

True, the hippies had their conspiracy theorists, like Mr. Chomsky the pamphleteer; yet, it was a movement mostly founded on the belief that the world was fundamentally good. This is not what the Tea Partiers believe. They think that the world is out to get them; that they have to defend themselves against those damned Islamo-Mexicans, erect taller walls, hoard on food for a potential civil war, etc.

So, while Mr. Brooks is partially right he is also way off-target. The hippies and the Tea Parties are much more different than alike.

the Varieties of Hippism

Brooks column today is pretty interesting, but I find it deeply off.

He calls the Tea-Partiers 'hippies'. Ok, David, yellowish enough. You grabbed my attention. But how can he explain, for example, the original hippies propensity towards New Ageism, while the Tea Partiers (he calls them hippies as well) bend towards Christianism?

I would write about this in a future post.

Free Willy!!!

Nader referred to this in last week's class, yet, I HAVE some thoughts about Tilikum the Killer Whale.

Veganism is more than just not eating animal products; and there are many reasons as to why people take up veganism, ranging from ethical concerns for the welfare of animals to health reasons. Count me on the first group.

Yes, veganism keeps me healthier (though I smoke one or two a day and drink too much diet soda), but I became vegan primarily due to ethical concerns. At this point, however, the image of chewing meat grosses me out...but I try not to judge others if they want to feed on innocent beings.

As a matter of fact, I think that even if I die a vegan at 100 I would have eaten more meat than most people on this earth will ever eat. That extreme was I with my meat eating habit. But I digress.

I have always been of two minds regarding zoos since becoming a vegan. I understand the need to study animals and their behaviors, especially given the excellent job we are doing destroying their natural habitats. I also see zoos as an excellent tool in making people more sympathetic to animals. I guess that once you look a gorilla in the eye, something radically changes deep inside you. And that is a good thing.

Yet, I have also seen my fair share of abuse in zoos (zoo visits in Quebec and Puerto Rico come to mind). I have seen MAD polar bears and hyenas. Animals banging their heads against their cages, with crusty blood in their furs, walking back and forth non-stop. This was BEFORE I was vegan, and it broke my heart. To break an animal's spirit to the point that you can recognize madness is a pretty sad and demeaning sight.

Which brings me to the killer whale.

What the fuck are we thinking? Do we think we can get away with breaking an animal's spirit and not have it push back at us with lethal force? This whale has so far killed 3 human beings! The killer whale in question, Tilikum, has been described as 'difficult, depressed and usually temperamental'. Surprise! Take a 12 thousand pound whale, cage her in a pool, and force her to dance and splash and jump to entertain a bunch of suburban bratty kids....wouldn't any being be depressed and difficult as hell? If I were that whale I would have exercised my second amendment rights with full force. I would be wearing an NRA badge. They would have to call me Rambo the crazy ass blood-lust whale.

I know that the world is not going to turn vegan any time soon, but is it too much to ask for some good ol' common sense? These are known as KILLER whales! They are very beautiful and cute, yes. And so? It reminds me of Herzog's Grizzly Man. Those bears ARE cute as hell, ohh so chubby, ohhh so furry! And they munched this good-intentioned guy alive. At one point in the movie they interview an Inuit (?) and the guy much or less says 'my people have been running away from grizzlies for 7 thousand years, because those damned bears are violent and can get nasty! and here comes this guy who thought he could share a bed with 'em coz they are cute and furry; if you ask me he got what he was looking for!' I agree.

Don't get me wrong. I feel truly sorry for the trainer that got killed by the whale, for reals. But, there is also a part of me that is whispering a big 'yes!!!! there you go killer whale! do your thing! Be the best killer whale you can be!'

Leave the animals alone. Don't abuse them. Don't use them for entertainment. Treat them with respect. They are not here to serve us. And if possible, don't eat them or turn them into bags, jackets and/or belts.

Playing Chicken in Turkey

This is a RE-post of a posting I did yesterday.

I'm gonna step out of my bounds by a lot here...but,

This OpEd about Turkey gives me the chills.

It is an interesting and quite long story, but me and my partner own an apartment in Istanbul; and so, I try to keep myself abreast about what's going on.

Long story short: the party in power, the AK (Islamist leaning), has been arresting military figures, academics, journalists for some time now. The reason? Their alleged membership to Ergenekon, a secret and extremely complex organization, that many Turks refer simply as 'the shadow state' or the 'state within the state'. A very paranoid idea, but still, it is real. Ergenekon exists. But this past week they arrested four ex-leaders from the military. The higher brass. And the military is not happy at all. It is becoming evident that the party in power is using a legitimate concern (Ergenekon) to bully the military into political submission. It is more complex than that, but it sounds like what I just described.

The particularly troubling part is the author's opinion (which I share) that: "The A.K. government’s disdain for its critics and its intimidation of the media hardly make me confident about the next episode in this drama." (my emphasis).

The thing the US needs the least right now is a coup d'État in Turkey. And, understanding some of the political dynamics of the country, and having many friends who served in its military, I think I know were things are heading. Will it be successful? Don't know. The military has already lost a lot of its prestige, but consequences there will be.

Today there is new article in the New York Times about the situation; the author believes that Turkey has already crossed an important threshold, and that the military seems to unwilling or unable to react in the ways it has done in the past (orchestrating coup d'etats).

In the Streets of L.A.

In the New York Times today:

"Although hardly as pressing as the threat of nuclear proliferation, there is also a strong sense of exasperation among Latin American leaders with the United States. Just last week, those leaders agreed to form a new political group that, unlike the Organization of American States, includes Cuba and excludes the United States and Canada.

The new coalition is meant to rival the O.A.S., which some countries consider a tool of American dominance in the hemisphere.

Riordan Roett, a Latin America expert at Johns Hopkins University, said that the organization was only one more example of the diminished standing of the United States in Latin America. China, he said, has replaced the United States as the main trading partner of Brazil and Chile, both growing economies. And while the Obama administration’s leading Latin America appointments were delayed by Washington power struggles, Europe’s political influence has filled the void.

A visit from Mrs. Clinton, he said, is not likely to be enough to repair the damage.

“I don’t get the sense that there’s a game plan for Latin America,” Mr. Roett said. “And Latin Americans don’t get that sense either.”

---

Where to start?

There are two ways to see this: we deal with Latin America pro-actively or we do damage control. The first one implies a position of strength, the later of weakness. It might be the case that only damage control mode will do by now.

When I was young and naive I thought that government was the institution capable of dealing with everything at the same time. That's why we had bureaucrats and experts. Acting in the Middle East didn't preclude having a cogent policy towards Africa or Latin America, for example. Ahhhh! Naive me!!! That seems not to be the case. Primarily, or so my theory goes, because everything important that we do demands the presence of our President. The Europeans weep if Obama does not flight to Madrid for a meeting, or if he is too busy to show up for the vote about what city will host the next Olympics, Gordon Brown kicks his secretaries because Obama didn't meet with him, the Indonesians remove a statue of Obama because he has still not visited the country, and so on.

When I write about this I write as a loyal American (of Latin American stock) that is primarily concerned about OUR interests; with a reality-based understanding that -by and large- our interests can be framed in a way that turns them into regional interests. And that the interests of the region can become -by and large- American interests. There will always be differences, of course, but the main body of our engagement in the region should be framed around our shared concerns. Differences can be negotiated or fought out within that context.

What is clear, though, is that ignoring the region is not paying out and will be catastrophic in the end. China and Europe are filling the political void left by the United States in Latin America. Which means, to give but one example, that it would be even more difficult to organize a regional bloc against Iran's nuclear ambitions. And those are a LOT of votes in the UN.

If we continue driving in this direction we will either 'loose' all of our standing in the region and allow China and Europe to take charge, or we will end up trying to get back in charge the Reagan way, through the funding of ill-faithed revolutions and civil wars and shit.

We have taken Latin America for granted. 75 thousand Peruvians died in a civil war, but we were still primarily obsessed with the Israelis and the Palestinians. Over thirteen thousand guerrilla fighters alone have been killed in Colombia's civil war since 2002, but we still have Amampour in Jerusalem and Tehran showing us how the world is going to end. Why? The Americas, are after all, our hemisphere.

It seems that the region is paying the price of not having its militants blowing up themselves in restaurants and bazaars!

The saddest thing is that there is a current of Latin American modernism and idealism, especially from the lefties in the region, that wants the Americans to be engaged. An ideal vision that the United States is the clumsy brother from the North, but a brother nonetheless; an ideology that is always striving to differentiate between the good and hardworking regular American people and their silly government and greedy corporations. Yet, nothing is being done to tap into this existing narrative that seeks friendship rather than confrontation.

This Pan-American idealism has been there since the times of Bolivar, and is all pervasive. Nothing we have done has changed it, not even our support of Pinochet, Trujillo and the Contras. That is, until now. That ideal vision of the true America is what drove Fidel to visit Harlem back in the early 60's, it is what made the founding figures of literary modernism in the region (Ruben Darío and Pablo Neruda, for example) to consider Walt Whitman and Thomas Paine main influences. It is what gave the confidence to José Martí and the Puerto Rican revolutionaries fighting against Spain to organize their independence movements from New York City.

But I guess that the US is betting that the indians down south will come into the fold when we need them for real. By then the region might be too busy in a collective Londonesque Grey Tea soirée or pigging out on Chinese noodles.

What a pity.

(my op-ed touching on some of these issues is here)