|
| Wednesday, October 10, 2001 |
 |
Alternarolling 
| | Hal Crowther, one of our finest columnists of our time (and a most deserving winner of the H.L. Mencken prize a few years ago), has been writing for years out of North Carolina, first for Spectator Magazine and then for The Independent, a fine alternative weekly. For years after I left the state in 1985 I remained a subscriber, mostly to get my weekly dose of Hal.. |
| | These days Hal's columns are far less frequent. His first column this year ran in March. I had hoped a second would follow the September 11 catastophes. One finally has. |
| | Hal reminds me both of my own suspension of journalistic impulse, and of the source of my formerly impacable deja vu: the Kennedy and King assassinations back in the Sixties: |
| | When I saw the second flaming 767 tear the 110-story office tower in two, I understood that first-reaction, trembling-fingered journalism was out of the question. I felt no need to weigh in, no need to be heard from. This isn't about me or my feelings. It's a time of fear and of insubstantiality, when nothing is solid; nothing is what it seems to be or seemed to be before. |
| | The vertigo is familiar to most of us who experienced the assassinations of the 1960s, the bewildering murders of the Kennedy brothers and Martin Luther King Jr. They made orphans of us all. But this time it's more personal — not another cry of terror from the remote violent world of the great and powerful but a Nightmare on Elm Street, on your own block with your neighbors' blood on the pavement. |
| | He also puts his fingers on the fear I hold for what will happen if Osama Bin Laden's plan is no less suicidal than the nineteen Al Qaeda operatives who died killing thousands on September 11: |
| | "Revenge" and "punishment" were the words we heard most often. Revenge is a natural instinct, one I understand very well. But there are few reports of rich satisfaction for people who act on it. Punishment, in the case of these terrorists, is kind of a joke. These were deliberate martyrs who chose to burn to death in jet fuel at a temperature of 1,000 degrees centigrade. How do we punish such a person, in a country where lethal injection is the worst thing we can think of? Convicted of murder, such a zealot might demand burning or flaying or boiling in oil, in order to qualify for a loftier perch in Paradise. There's every indication that Osama bin Laden, accused as the mastermind behind the Sept. 11 attacks, is cut from the same cloth. With an appropriate martyrdom he could become the most celebrated Muslim since The Prophet Mohammed. Americans imagine him begging for his life, but what I imagine is more like Brer Rabbit and the Briar Patch. Anyone who thinks killing bin Laden ends the terror is unfamiliar with the myth of Hercules and the Hydra. |
| | "O God, the Father of all, whose Son commanded us to love our enemies: Lead them and us from prejudice to truth; deliver them and us from hatred, cruelty and revenge; and in your good time enable us all to stand reconciled before you." |
| | One of those passages that feels equally hard and good. |
| | In the same alternative vein, Gordon Coale has weighed in on yesterday's question with some interesting thoughts about watching "The Matrix" on DVD. (One of my favorite movies, The Matrix has lost a lot of its appeal since 9-11.) He also pointed to his blog, which has links to some artfully contrarian sites on the the way this current war is being spun. Here's one. Here's another. |
| | These points of view become a bit more valuable after the White House press secretary (as the New York Times put it) today admonished all Americans "to watch what they say." |
OSI to W3C: Don't get RANDy
| | We stand with those who see the RAND proposal as an invasive and corrupting attempt to hijack the standards process, to tilt the Web's relatively level playing field in favor of players with legions of lawyers and lots of money. That other standards organizations who should have known better (such as the IETF) have let this particular camel's nose under the tent is no excuse for the W3C to repeat that error. |
| | RAND would also tend to stifle innovation. The history of the Web and the Internet amply demonstrates that in today's world innovation does not come to us from the entrenched giants of technology and media -- indeed, they experience genuine innovation as an unwelcome disruption, upsetting their strategic plans and obsolescing their cash cows. RAND would permit -- nay, it would invite -- abuse of supposedly "non-discriminatory" license terms to suppress innovation and lock in customers. |
| | And dig the embrasure of independent developers here: |
| | Web innovation springs from precisely those independents and open-source developers whom RAND would systematically freeze out of the process. If the W3C enacts Clause 5 as written, it will be an act of betrayal against both the Web's history and its future. The W3C will deserve the schism and developer revolt that would follow -- and it will deserve the fate to which this bad decision would inexorably doom it. |
| | The letter lays down some fightin' words, too: |
| | The time is ripe for confrontation. Thousands of web developers have already made their voices heard against RAND. The largest IT consultancy in the world has just recommended that IT customers drop proprietary webservers in favor of the open-source Apache. The increase in adoption of open-source operating systems on web servers continues exploding, propelled both by pressure on capital spending and the increasingly onerous license terms attached to their closed-source and technically inferior competitors. |
| | If the W3C persists in its present course, it risks having its tea dumped in Boston harbor as the first move in a revolution that will vest effective control of Web standards in open-source groups like the Apache Software Foundation and entirely out of the ambit of the W3C and its sponsors. OSI would do what we can help lead that revolt. |
| | So I guess it's clear where they stand. |
| | Here are some other voices: |
Food from thought
Be change now
| | To watch Iknahton's seizure that the sun is the single God, to the development of Israeli Ethical Monotheism, to the Sonship of Jesus, to the Absolute of Islam is a process of rewriting of the first dream. The narrative development is plain to those who can think and see. The current outcome poises us on the brink of religious war. All for a series of purely literary conceits that have nothing to do with the realities of nature our earnest men of science and prophetic poetry and story have disclosed for us. If there is something the mystics call the real, the sacred, the holy, the true, it is accessable to all of us. It is not the possession of those who say God talks to them, has given them a final and absolute truth. The terror of history is legitimated by those seized by this mythology. We die from a purely literary nightmare gone mad. |
| | Now Lakoff (somewhat abridged): |
| | We must reframe the discussion. I was reminded recently of Gandhi's words: Be the change you want. The words apply to governments as well as to individuals. |
| | There are (at least) three kinds of causes of radical Islamic terrorism: 1) worldview, or religious rationale; 2) social and political conditions, or cultures of despair; 3) means, or the enabling conditions.... |
| | It is important at the outset to separate moderate to liberal Islam from radical Islamic fundamentalists, who do not represent most Muslims. Radical Islamic fundamentalists hate our culture. They have a worldview that is incompatible with the way that Americans‹and other Westerners‹live their lives... |
| | Most Islamic would-be martyrs not only share these beliefs but have grown up in a culture of despair that leaves people vulnerable to the idea of martyrdom: They have little to lose. Eliminate the conditions of despair and you eliminate much of the breeding ground for terrorists. When the Bush administration speaks of eliminating terror, it does not appear to be talking about remedying cultures of despair and the social conditions that lead one to want to give up one's life to martyrdom. Country by country, the conditions (both material and political) leading to despair need to be addressed, with a worldwide commitment to ending them. It should be done because it is a necessary part of addressing the causes of terrorism‹and because it is right. The anti-terrorist coalition being formed should be made into a long-term global institution for this purpose. |
| | That would address the second cause. But what about the first‹the radical Islamic worldview itself? Military action won't change it. Social action won't change it. Worldviews live in the minds of people. How can one change those minds‹and if not present minds, then future minds? The West cannot! Those minds can only be changed by moderate and liberal Muslims‹clerics, teachers, elders, respected community members. There is no shortage of them. It is vital that they form a unified voice against hate and, with it, terror. Remember that "taliban" means "students." Those who teach hate in Islamic schools must be replaced‹and we in the West cannot replace them. This can only be done by an organized, moderate, nonviolent Islam. The West may be able to help in some ways, but alone we are powerless to carry it out. We depend on the goodwill‹as well as the courage and effectiveness‹of moderate Islamic leaders. To gain it, we must show our goodwill by beginning in a serious way to address the social and political conditions that lead to despair. |
| | But a conservative American government, thinking of the enemy as evil, will not take the primary causes seriously. They will only go after the enabling causes. But unless the primary causes are addressed, terrorists will continue to be spawned. |
| | ...what is needed is a positive form of discourse. |
| | The central concept is that of "responsibility," which is at the heart of progressive or liberal morality. Such morality begins with empathy, the ability to understand others and feel what they feel. That is presupposed in responsibility‹for oneself, for protection, for the care of those who need care, and for the community. Those were the values that we saw at work among the rescue workers in New York right after the attack. |
| | Responsibility requires competence and effectiveness. If you are to deal responsibly with terrorism, you must deal effectively with all its causes: religious, social and enabling causes. Responsibility requires care in the place of blundering, overwhelming force. Bombing innocent civilians and harming them by destroying their country's domestic infrastructure will be counterproductive‹as well as immoral. Failure to address the religious and social causes would also be irresponsible. The responsible response begins with joint international action to address all three: the social and political conditions, the religious worldview and the means with all due care. |
| | Take a careful look at what Lakoff says about the difference between a self-interested foreign policy based on "strict father" morality, and a more inclusive foreign policy based on what he calls "nurturant norms." First, the Strict Father model at work: |
| | The use of the word "evil" in the administration's discourse works in the following way. In conservative, "Strict Father" morality, evil is a palpable thing, a force in the world. To stand up to evil you have to be morally strong. If you're weak, you let evil triumph, so that weakness is a form of evil in itself, as is promoting weakness. Evil is inherent, an essential trait, that determines how you will act in the world. Evil people do evil things. No further explanation is necessary. There can be no social causes of evil, no religious rationale for evil, no reasons or arguments for evil. The enemy of evil is good. If our enemy is evil, we are inherently good. Good is our essential nature and what we do in the battle against evil is good. Good and evil are locked in a battle, which is conceptualized metaphorically as a physical fight in which the stronger wins. Only superior strength can defeat evil, and only a show of strength can keep evil at bay. Not to show overwhelming strength is immoral, since it will induce evildoers to perform more evil deeds because they'll think they can get away with it. To oppose a show of superior strength is therefore immoral. Nothing is more important than the battle of good against evil, and if some innocent noncombatants get in the way and get hurt, it is a shame, but it is to be expected and nothing can be done about it. Indeed, performing lesser evils in the name of good is justified‹"lesser" evils like curtailing individual liberties, sanctioning political assassinations, overthrowing governments, torture, hiring criminals and "collateral damage." |
| | Then there is the basic security metaphor, Security As Containment — keeping the evildoers out. Secure our borders, keep them and their weapons out of our airports, have marshals on the planes. Most security experts say that there is no sure way to keep terrorists out or to deny them the use of some weapon or other; a determined, well-financed terrorist organization can penetrate any security system. Or they can choose other targets, say, oil tankers. |
| | Yet the Security As Containment metaphor is powerful. It is what lies behind the missile shield proposal. Rationality might say that the September 11 attack showed the missile shield is pointless. But it strengthened the use of the Security As Containment metaphor. As soon as you say "national security," the Security As Containment metaphor will be activated and with it, the missile shield. |
| | The reaction of the Bush administration is just what you would expect a conservative reaction to be‹pure Strict Father morality: The world is a dangerous place. There is evil loose in the world. We must show our strength and wipe it out. Retribution and vengeance are called for. If there are "casualties" or "collateral damage," so be it |
| | "Nurturant norms," however, add global concerns that encompass strictly national ones. A nurturnant foreign policy would care about the environment, human rights (including women's rights), children, slavery, international health issues (e.g., AIDS in Africa), sustainable development, refugees and, of course, terrorism. These concerns are moral norms expressed by every trans-national advocacy group, from the United Nations to the Red Cross and the Red Crescent. By simply adopting those groups' scope of concern, we can properly and accurately frame the fight against terrorism as something larger than Al-Qaeda vs. America. Lakoff again: |
| | If the United States wants terror to end, the United States must end its own contribution to terror. And we must also end terror sponsored not against the West but against others. We have made a deal with Pakistan to help in Afghanistan. Is it part of the deal that Pakistan renounce its own support of terrorism in Kashmir against India? I would be shocked if it were. The Bush foreign policy of self-interest does not require it. |
| | The question must be asked. If that is not part of the deal, then our government has violated its own stated ideals; it is hypocritical. If the terrorism we don't mind — or might even like — is perpetuated, terrorism will not end and will eventually turn back on us, just as our support for the mujahedin did. The foreign policy of moral norms is the only sane foreign policy. We must be the change we want! |
| | If we're going to fight terrorism, we also need to fight our own policies that encourage and rationalize it. If terrorism isn't okay here, it shouldn't be okay anywhere, no matter who commits it. That's what we need to stand for. |
Mugged by reality
| | Sad news: Silicon Alley Reporter has published its last issue. I like Jason McCabe Calcanis and think he did a great job with the mag for as long as he could. |
| | But the end of Silicon Alley Reporter is also the start of Venture Reporter. I wish him well. |
| | [Later: J.D. says Venture Reporter is actually a re-launch of Silicon Alley Reporter.] |
discuss
Copyright 2009 The Doc Searls Weblog
|
