The War on Terror

We are testudines testa sua inclusi, like so many tortoises in our shells, safely defended by an angry sea, as a wall on all sides.

-Robert Burton, Anatomy of Melancholy



Something there is that doesn't love a wall, That wants it down.

...

There where it is we do not need the wall:
He is all pine and I am apple orchard.
My apple trees will never get across
And eat the cones under his pines, I tell him.
He only says, "Good fences make good neighbors."

...

He will not go behind his father's saying,
And he likes having thought of it so well
He says again, "Good fences make good neighbors."

-Robert Frost, "Mending Wall"

crumenimulga natio

[a purse-milking nation]

"That the state was like a sick body which had lately taken physic, whose humors are not yet settled, and weakened so much by purging, that nothing was left but melancholy."

-Hippolytus

The Audacity of Hope

Can hope—desire—be dangerous?

Qui cupiet, metuet quoque porro,
Qui metuens vivit, liber mihi non erit unquam.

[Who hath desires must ever fearful be;
Who lives in fear cannot be counted free.]

-Lactantius

Desire to gain portends the fear to loose. So does well-meant liberalism lead to a certain perverse conservatism: prisoners of of our ambition, of our acquisition.

It's only after we've lost everything that we're free to do anything.

-Tyler Durden, Fight Club

Through a glass, darkly

Why do we condemn the Bill Clintons, the John Edwards, the Tiger Woods of the world? Why do we Americans (prudish so) hold our celebrities so lofty in moral expectation?

For princes are the glass, the school, the book,
Where subjects' eyes do learn, do read, do look,

Velocius et citius nos
Corrumpunt vitiorum exempla domestica, magnis
Cum subeant animos auctoribus.
[Domestic examples of vice corrupt us more swiftly
and sooner, when in stirring our passions they
are backed by the example of the great.]

-Antigonus

Examples of the great
Are great enablers.

Semantics in the Sino-American Relationship

"Watch yer mouth, son!"

Next week, when President Obama arrives in Beijing, he will represent a nation that maintains "positive, cooperative and comprehensive" ties with the Middle Kingdom (the official jointly-agreed-upon characterization in Beijing and the Beltway).

This is in marked difference to the Nixon-era "tacit allies [against the Soviet Union]" and the George W. Bush-era "strategic competitors." Bush had also described the relationship as "candid," but Beijing has shied away from suggestions that the two powers might criticize each other publicly.

Don't rush to cynicism—this Confucian-inspired attitude reflects the existential importance of face-saving and respect between two mutually-dependent behemoths. He is recorded in the Analects 2,500 years ago as explaining the importance of language to statecraft:

There must be no arbitrariness in what is said. This matters above all things. If names are not correct, language is not in accordance with the truth of things. If language is not in accordance with the truth of things, affairs cannot be carried to success.

What words will President Obama, known above all things for his rhetorical flourishes, use next week? Town hall-style meetings have presented the administration with some of its toughest domestic criticism over fiscal policy and health care reform. What happens 7,000 miles away, when he faces a hot seat in a heavily mediated town hall with students in Shanghai? And what of his steps through the ancient tradition of Forbidden City diplomacy in Beijing, where slight breaches of nuanced ritual have lost many a foreign emissary life and limb?

Perhaps Obama was a little too candid with his words as a young senator in Illinois:

They're neither our enemy, nor our friend. They're competitors.

Ouch.

According to Orville Schell, China specialist with the Asia Society's Center on U.S.-China Relations, "We Americans don't do ritual very well. We don't take it seriously. For the Chinese, it is all-important."

Perhaps it would be indeed be prudent to parse our words toward a "strategic competitor" which holds $1 trillion in American debt; which is our most important trading partner; which maintains a nuclear stockpile of hundreds and the world's largest army; which maintains intimate ties with trouble spots North Korea, Pakistan, Iran and Sudan; which has held crucial veto power on the U.N. Security Council since 1979; and which may likely eclipse us in economic and geostrategic power within our lifetimes.


The Gossip, by Norman Rockwell

Little known fact: It is official U.S. policy since President Nixon signed the Shanghai Communique in 1972 that Taiwan is actually part of the People's Republic of China. There are only 22 (mostly tiny) countries that diplomatically recognize Taiwan as a separate nation—the United States is not one of them. The "Taiwanese Embassy" in the United States is officially known as the "Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office in the United States," even though its web domain is "www.taiwanembassy.org/US." Taiwan, which self-identifies as the "Republic of China," is known widely as "Chinese Taipei" in international sporting events (like the 2008 Beijing Olympics) and some international organizations, per People's Republic of China pressure.

From Wikipedia:

Both sides agree to use the English name "Chinese Taipei". This is possible because of the ambiguity of the English word "Chinese". In 1979, the International Olympic Committee passed a resolution in Nagoya, Japan, restoring the rights of the Chinese Olympic Committee within the IOC, meanwhile renaming the Taipei-based Olympic Committee "Chinese Taipei Olympic Committee". Since then, and until 1989 the PRC translated "Chinese Taipei" as "Zhongguo Taipei" (simplified Chinese: 中国台北, traditional Chinese: 中國臺北, hanyu pinyin: Zhōngguó Táiběi), connoting that Taipei is a part of the Chinese state. By contrast, the Republic of China government translated it as "Zhonghua Taipei" (traditional Chinese: 中華台北 or 中華臺北, Hanyu Pinyin: Zhōnghuá Táiběi) in Chinese, which references the term "China" as the cultural or ethnic entity, rather than the state.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"If names are not correct, language is not in accordance with the truth of things..."

Last Words from Death Penalty Inmates

John Allen Muhammad, AKA "The DC Sniper," who was put to death today in Virginia by lethal injection. He declined a last statement. I remember ducking behind the pumps while gassing my car during his three-week-long 2002 shooting spree—I was legitimately afraid. We all were. The murders were so random, disembodied violence aimed at the most normal moments in our daily routines. Family members of the ten victims crammed into a small viewing room in the execution chamber of Greensville Correctional Center in Jarratt, Virginia...

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This post expresses no opinion about the death penalty—because I have none. It merely tries to humanize one of the many heavy and complex matters that have become mere "issues" in the 24-hour news cycle.

These last statements from death row inmates, on the verge of execution, are posted on the Texas Department of Criminal Justice website here.

Yes I do. I know ya'lls pain, believe me I shed plenty of tears behind Carlos. Carlos was my friend. I didn't murder him. This what is happening right now is an injustice. This doesn't solve anything. This will not bring back Carlos. Ya'll fought real hard here to prove my innocence. This is only the beginning. I love each and everyone dearly. Dre My queen. I love you. Yaws, Junie I love yall. Stay strong, continue to fight. They are fixing to pump my veins with a lethal drug the American Veterinary Association won't even allow to be used on dogs. I say I am worse off than a dog. They want to kill me for this; I am not the man that did this. Fight on. I will see ya'll again. That's all I can say. -Reginald Blanton, Executed October 27, 2009

On 4/13/2000 in San Antonio, Blanton and one co-defendant shot and killed a 20 year old Hispanic male in his apartment. Blanton took jewelry from the victim which was later pawned for $79. He was 18. He was executed 10 years later, at the age of 28.

The Polunsky dungeon should be compared with the Death Row Community as existing not living. Why do I say this, the Death Row is full of isolated hearts and suppressed minds. We are filled with love looking for affection and a way to understand. I am a Death Row resident of the Polunsky dungeon. Why does my heart ache. We want pleasure love and satisfaction. It. The walls of darkness crushed in on me. Life without meaning is life without purpose. But the solace within the Polunsky dungeon, the unforgivesness within society, the church Pastors and Christians. It is terrifying. Does anyone care or who I am. Can you feel me people. The Polunsky dungeon is what I call the pit of hopelessness. The terrfying thing is the US is the only place, country that is the only civilized country that is free that says it will stop murder and enable justice. I ask each of you to lift up your voices to demand an end to the Death Penalty. If we live, we live to the Lord. If we die we die to the Lord. Christ rose again, in Jesus name. Bye Aunt Helen, Luise, Joanna and to all the rest of yall. You may proceed Warden. [began singing] -Johnny Johnson, Executed February 2, 2009

What did he do? Here's the report. (Hint: He's a less-than-ideal voice for the anti-death penalty lobby).

Is the mic on? My only statement is that no cases have ever tried have been error free. Those are my words. No cases are error free. You may proceed Warden. -Dale Devon Scheanette, Executed February 10, 2009

On 12/24/1996, in Arlington, Texas, Scheanette sexually assaulted and strangled a 22 year old black female, resulting in her death.

Yes, nothing I can say can change the past. I am asking for forgiveness. Saying sorry is not going to change anything. I hope one day you can find peace. I am sorry for all of the pain that I have caused you for all those years. There is nothing else I can say, that can help you.

Mija, I love you. Sis, Cynthia, and Sandy, keep on going and it will be O.K. I am sorry to put you through this as well. I can't change the past. I hope you find peace and know that I love you. I am sorry. I am sorry and I can't change it. -David Martinez, Executed February 10, 2009

Mr. Martinez was charged with beating his wife and their 14-year-old son to death with a baseball bat.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

...led into the chamber in denim and flip-flops, John Allen Muhammad was injected with a series of lethal drugs beginning at 9:06 p.m. and he was pronounced dead at 9:11 p.m. Bob Meyers, whose brother, Dean H. Meyers, 53, was gunned down Oct. 9 at a Prince William County gas station said, "There are no winners here. We are not celebrating. It was a sad day for everyone."

Love as a Verb

On the Dao, "Loving" over "Love," and the Gerundal Nature of Happiness...

The entire venerable canon of 5,000 years worth of Chinese religious philosophy could be reduced to a single syllable—

Dao (道)

Translators have had trouble with this word. They usually translate 道 into English as "the Way."

The confusion stems from the fact that in Mandarin Chinese there is no distinction between nouns, verbs, adverbs, etc. as there are in most Indo-European languages. The same word often means a ____ (noun), to ____ (verb), ____-ing (gerund), ____-ingly (adverb), etc.


The same written character 道, for example, means variously:

direction / way / road / path / principle / truth / morality / reason / skill / method / Dao (of Daoism) / to say / to speak / to talk / classifier for long thin stretches, rivers, roads etc / province of Korea (do 도)/ former province of Japan (dō)

The Daoist concept of Dao is neither noun, nor verb, nor adjective--but something that both encompasses and transcends grammatical category. Translating it into English as the abstract noun "the Way," however, tends to give precedence of the noun over the active verb aspects of 道. A more accurate, but ungainly, translation might be "Way-ing." The verbification of nouns in a gerundal "-ing" is the closest that English gets to this "active noun" state.

OK, so what?

Consider the following cliche:

"Love conquers all."

Everyone who reads this with the jaundiced eye of the early 21st Century (half-)knows it's a farce. With divorce rates pushing 60%, financial disaster and unemployment putting strains on relationships, and a Millennial Generation putting off marriage later and later, love clearly doesn't conquer all.

In the phrase "Love conquers all," the word "Love" serves as a subject noun. "Conquers" is the verb, and "all" the direct object of the verb. "Love" is an abstract noun, meaning it's meaning is already elusive, yet universalized. There is only one Love, and yet we are all expected to approach it from individual, subjective angles in the messy realm of romantic reality.

The abstract noun "Love" has been written about endlessly over the eons, and yet who can really explain it to the uninitiated? Like most abstract nouns ("courage," "integrity," "good," "evil," "hope," "change"), "Love" is impossible to codify. We approach the Platonic Form of Love from very divergent angles, all the while unsure whether such an objective and eternal Platonic Form of Love exists. Does Evil exist? Does Good exist? We wonder.

Furthermore, our contemporary ideas of Love and romantic marriage are actually quite new. It was only in the last two centuries that young Western people set out on the journey of finding "the One." You would look for a perfect match, for "compatibility," and then enter a long courtship (designed to reveal or disprove said compatibility), before sealing the deal with marriage. Keep in mind that this approach was compatible with the dominant 18th and 19th Century zeitgeist of rational progress, of the perfectibility of human life through applied reason. Dating/courtship was/is as a "scientific trial," with Love as the "hypothesis," and having weathered the double-blind trials of dating, Love would transition through Theory to Law (marriage).


"Cindy, we've been 'hooking up' for some months now. I'd like to take it to the next level—and ask you out on a date."

Since then, we've been a bit disappointed by this naive faith in the transcendental potential of pure, scientific reason. As well, we've had a rather severe hangover from the 19th Century iteration of romantic marriage. High divorce rates, rampant adultery, and a multibillion-dollar marriage therapy and self-help industry portend this restiveness.

We now "shop" to "purchase" the perfect mate, just as we'd compare the labels of cereal boxes in the supermarket. Just as the salesmen in an electronic store assures us that we'll get years of bliss out of our "state-of-the-art" flatscreen television (which is immediately woefully obsolete the minute it exists the showroom), so too does the modern Romance Establishment assure us that with enough (expensive) dating, an (expensive) extravagant enough wedding, further consumer purchases of (expensive) gifts for holidays, and (expensive) couples therapy sessions, we'll be happy perpetually. If it doesn't work out, it's because you purchased a lemon. Divorce—despite its heavy emotional and financial toll—is the answer. Don't worry though, there are (expensive) lawyers for that.



Now, there's even talk of the "starter marriage," with planned obsolescence contained in its very design. Laboring under the rusted illusion of "till death do we part," we instead lease-to-buy. Nobody has ever achieved eternal bliss from a consumer purchase at the mall, and we're all quite accustomed to "shopper's guilt." Why then, do we think applying the same logic to Love will assure eternal romantic bliss? Why do we so quickly ignore the other (true) cliche that "marriage takes work"? Why do we believe in the shocking improbable notion that "the perfect match" exists, that we will find that match out of 6.96 billion people in a romantically active window of 5-15 years (despite limits of time and geographic distance), and that initial match will effortlessly weather the seasons of one's life without any maintenance?

Even the man who loves his vintage 1970 Dodge Charger has to (and loves to) spend hours maintaining it in the garage every weekend. This is known in the common parlance as a "labor of love." This vintage auto enthusiast loves his car, labors out of love to maintain it, and remains ever-in-love with its well-oiled engine. Let us not disregard this man's sincere affection for this object. His is the same love a gardener feels for his garden or an artist for his canvas. His relationship to his car is categorically different to the recent-purchaser-of-the-top-of-the-line-flatscreen's. And, in his approach, we get closer to the idea of the Dao of Loving.


Loving—hard!

Let's consider that we've asked the wrong question about Love. We may never know what "Love" is (if it exists as such), but most of us are quite familiar with what "loving" is, what it is "to love." We know it when we experience it.

So, let us amend the aforementioned cliche to this:

"Loving conquers all."

Again, we return to that magic "-ing"—the gerund. The gerund is both abstract noun and verb. It is both active and static. It is both existent and emerging. The gerund is a process. Dare we say the gerund is the true nature of "the Way?"

If "Love" fails more often than not to overcome the more mundane challenges of personal finance, career, day-to-day dispute, cultural difference, friends and extended family, perhaps it is "loving" that is really the panacea for our ills of loneliness and strife?

The dictionary defines "loving" as the following:

feeling or showing love / warmly affectionate / fond [ex: loving glances]

"Loving" is both a adjectival result ("warmly affectionate" and "fond") and a verbal means ("feeling or showing love"). When you are "loving," therefore, you become "loving." What paradoxical magic!

For a concrete example of what Loving looks like day-to-day, consult this excellent piece in The New York Times Magazine on the Obamas's marriage.
______________________________________

I hope you've loved this post, readers, because I've loved writing it.