Surely the divine has a sense of humor. How else could one be simultaneously driven towards it and repulsed by it? To see the wonder and awe of its awesome scope and be gutted by the mundane simultaneously surely is evidence of its sole domain.
Such heights we're presented with. Such vistas and visions, launched from our ambitions and dreams, to be born into the pandemonium of life can only drive us to divinity or insanity. The distinction becomes unimportant, don't trouble yourself.
I would not be able to see the horizons I percieve if not for the blessing of my perspective. Without that range of vision, I wouldn't understand the limits of my ability. I would instead strike ahead tearfully with ignorant aspirations and terrified hope instead of jaw-clenched resolve.
To trade hubris for enlightenment is a bitter exchange. At what cost comes perspective? Sacrifice depth of human emotion for range of spiritual freedom?
So it is my future to watch more horrors. My existance seems fit to present additional layers of lash to my earned quotient. It is shouldered with the same resolution as all the others. I will continue to play my part, irrespective of its cost.
So will you. So will you. And that comes as small, if true, comfort.
Condoleezza Rice is going to be the next Secretary of State. I think this is a historic moment for blacks and for women. I wonder if there has ever been a President who has had more non-whites in his cabinet than Dubya? Anyone?
(Bonus points to the first person to claim that Condi is whatever the female equivalent of "Uncle Tom" would be. Oh, shush!)
Since it came up a couple of times in the past week, I wanted to rein in the '100,000 dead' claim made in the recent Lancet study (reg. required) by pointing out a few responses.
Slate weighs in with a debunking, without ignoring the heft of what truth is left:
"So, let's call it 15,000 or—allowing for deaths that the press didn't report—20,000 or 25,000, maybe 30,000 Iraqi civilians killed in a pre-emptive war waged (according to the latest rationale) on their behalf. That's a number more solidly rooted in reality than the Hopkins figure—and, given that fact, no less shocking."
Iraq Body Count, hardly a pro-war source has their own numbers (14-16,000)and a noncommittal response to the Lancet study:
"The Lancet study's headline figure of "100,000" excess deaths is a probabilistic projection from a small number of reported deaths - most of them from aerial weaponry - in a sample of 988 households to the entire Iraqi population..."
Finally, my favorite site Winds of Change has more on the subject:
"Actually, Kaplan's analysis doesn't really hold a candle to Lancet's peer review. He uses an undergraduate's knowledge of statistics to set up and demolish a straw-man rather than looking at the Lancet study for what it shows. Here are a few more-well-done third-party looks at that study..."
The aim of this post is not to diminish in any way the horror of the thousands of innocent civilians - unarmed men, women, and children - who have been casualties of the GWOT in Iraq, but rather to refocus its scope to more realistic parameters.
This started as a comment reply, but since I'd already suggested that sizable posts warranted their own blog, I figured I'd just post it here.
I am trying very hard to be sensitive. I am prepared and eager for debate. I'm not really sure how to approach this, I guess. I feel like it's an argument between the Black Panthers and the KKK, and I'm constantly being forced to choose a side.
I don't want to be on either side because they are both radical and both equally wrong for the country. Of course they both have strong core values. Of course they are right, and the other is wrong. My whole point is that the country is not made up of radicals, but rather moderates whose respective leanings have been so harshly polarized by demagogues that they are now now finding it very hard to stand up straight.
I do not think the citizens of this country are in a situation where they no longer have any choice but to pick a side and man the walls. We already have a two-party system, but the leadership of these two parties are merely leading us off different cliffs. I happen to be on the "winning" side of the red cliff-jumpers and I think it's going to take the clear assistance of the blue cliff-jumpers to snap my people out of their lockstep trance and change direction. But I cannot do it while they insist that the blue cliff is simply the better cliff to jump off of.
It is just as infuriating to me to hear Bush's "we'll cooperate with those who already agree with us" as it is for me to hear the "Red states are bible-thumping, fag-hating, racists" chant. They are both grating siren calls to bloody cliffs of blind intolerance. The two previous posts I made were an attempt to illustrate one side of the intolerance. Why the liberal side only? Because currently that is the losing side - and that's the side that has most frequently asked me to explain myself.
Apparently when I have described myself as a grudging Republican, that's not being clear enough. I'm on this side not because it's the best side, but because I currently do not see a better one. What I am trying to do is help create a better side to join. Trust me, there is no joy in being vilified on a daily basis. I wouldn't be doing this if I didn't feel it were absolutely neccessary for myself, my friends, my family, my country - and the world.
A few of you will scoff at these words. To you I say I genuinely believe we are in a very serious situation that will require sacrifice, dedication, patience, and humility to survive. I can handle some ridicule and patronizing and am doing my best to avoid distributing it. Please join me.
An excellent essay on why a young, female moderate felt forced to vote for Bush. Unless you believe gay marriage was the reason Bush won, read the whole thing.
To spur folks to click the link, I'll admit that it's better than most of what I write.
I had a conversation with my dad about the election last night. At one point he expressed disbelief and confusion about how anyone could vote for Bush, knowing what we know about him and his administration.
I suggested that he ask how, since he was talking to someone who did. He did, of course, and I went on to talk a bit about why I felt I had no choice - a position I've been uncomfortably holding for some time now.
I came across this link this morning, and emailed it to him with the following text (with some edits for clarity):
read more »
My Birthday party will be held on Saturday in a non-formal schedule. This essentially means I'll be drinking and enjoying myself from sometime in the afternoon til late that night. The reason I am not picking a location and time is twofold. One, there is a game at the Greek that night, which means there will be no parking. This is a problem for some people, so I'm hesitant to do what I'd normally do and have a little shindig in my miserably filthy hovel. Two, I am convinced that any outdoor plans I make will ensure cold and rain, and any indoor plans I make will guarantee beautiful, balmy weather. So I'm not making plans.
Screw you, weather gods.
Meanwhile, I will be making a lot of phone calls to everyone on Saturday to let them know what the hell is going on. Naturally, everyone will be busy, away from the phone, deep-sea diving, too hung over, in the hospital, and so on and will remind me that they wished me a happy birthday back on Wednesday anyway so why am I complaining.
That's fine. For the everyone else, consider it a rave - Matt style. Imagine you're a tripped out candy raver covered in stuff that would make Willy Wonka cry with jealousy. You are going to be invited to the best party ever. It's going to be held at-WAIT you don't know! Your cellphone will simply ring and tell you the secret location!
Exciting, ain't it?
I'll be drinking Bloody Mary's, which I have decided are my new favorite getting blotto drink. Go ahead and call me gay - I ain't getting married and it's the new black this millenium anyway.
Since it has been brought to my attention that my birthday is arriving shortly, apparently an announcement of some kind is in order.
My birthday this year is on Nov 6th, this Saturday. That's right, Saturday. Although many people consider Nov 3rd to be my birthday, and have been correct up until this moment, this year it is not.
To be perfectly clear - Absolutely nothing will be happening on Wednesday, Nov 3rd, aside from grimly watching the election lawsuits unfold. Anyone who wishes to recieve resentment and rejection can feel free to ignore this announcement and "just call to say happy birthday" or "drop in with a sixpack" and I will be happy to accomodate them with frustrated anger.
As for Nov 6th, I will be celebrating all damn day. As is tradition and well-established practice, I will be focusing my attentions on negociating between sobriety and alcoholism all day on into the night.
Party details to follow. Stay tuned.