For too long, no one has stood up and said that this is not right, that it is wrong, and I will take in no part of it. The only thing separating the Dick Cheney’s and George Bush’s of this world from the mass murderer’s of this world is proximity. They weren’t the one’s holding the knife or the gun, but still, if it wasn’t for them, it never would have happened. The scale of what they have done is orders of magnitude beyond even the most horrific of mass or spree killings, or the most prolific of serial killers. Mr. Bush, surely you can’t still believe that what you have done is right, you must have, at some point realized that engaging in this war was a mistake. How long ago was it that you realized you made a mistake, and how many people have been killed since then? How many of our courageous fighting men and women will be struck down, because you can’t say three little words, “I was wrong”? How many Iraqis, Journalists, Contractors, how many people has this war of yours already destroyed? Some 3,500 coalition soldiers are dead, in all you’ve taken by your actions maybe four hundred thousand lives. That is your legacy. The destruction of that country, and all of those many, many lives that are gone now, that is what you will be remembered for. I bet daddy’s proud of you now. You sure have showed him, haven’t you? You’ve gone and finished what he didn’t have the stomach for. This is your legacy, your contribution to the world; this is what will define your name. Does any of that bother you? Do you care that you will be counted alongside Saddam Hussein, as a tyrant, a torturer, and a killer? Do you care that as a direct result of your actions, a direct result of decisions that you made, scores of thousands of people are dead?
Monday, March 5, 2007
To George
On the War
The defining feature of our era is without a doubt the so called Global War on Terrorism, and, more specifically, the war that is ongoing in the country of
Sunday, February 18, 2007
On Possibility, Eternity, Genius, and an Infinite Monkey
Any bounded possibility, given an infinite amount of time, can be considered not only an eventuality, but an absolute certainty. This follows because infinity is not merely a big number, it's an insanely, massively, enormously, gigantically bigger number than you can even begin to imagine. If you place a limit on something, no matter how large or liberal that limit is, that thing will happen not just once, but again, and again, and again an infinite number of times if it's given an infinite amount of time to run its course. For example, novels generally have from 60,000 to 200,000 words. That's a large number, but it is still as far from infinity as three is. The English language has, and this is very approximately, 988,968 words that have ever been written down or uttered. This information allows for some calculations to be done. The number of possible ways to write one word is the number of words, precisely 988,968 possibilities. If you were to write two words, the number of possibilities is the number of words times itself, or 988,968^2. That number works out to 978,057,705,024 possibilities. So the total number of two word combinations that are possible is somewhere in the neighborhood, though slightly less than, one trillion permutations. The number of possible two-hundred-thousand word novels is easily deduced from mostly similar steps. You take the number of existing words and raise it to the power of the number of words you have, in this case 988,968^200,000. So there are 988,968^200,000 two-hundred-thousand word English language novels possible, though many of those would be incomprehensible nonsense, but everything up to 200,000 words is in there. Everything that’s been written by, and could have been written by the likes of William Shakespeare, Douglas Adams, Ian Fleming, Stephen King, or anybody for that matter. Each masterpiece, and each masterpiece greater than anything that’s been written, but not yet written, exists in the realm of possibility. There is a limit, the limit is massive, it’s huger than huge, overwhelmingly, mind-bendingly big, but it can be reached, given enough time. This goes for anything, given infinity, or even just a very long time, every thing that is possible will happen, and it will happen over and over again. This especially goes for music. There is a limit to the different patterns of One’s and Zero’s that can be burned on to an audio CD. The information on a compact disk is stored in areas of pits and lands, one’s and zero’s, offs and ons. There are about two billion different pits on a CD, and each of those can be in two different positions. The equation for figuring the number of possible permutations, the absolute upper limit to musical creativity is around 2^2,000,000,000. One should never forget the power of exponential growth; if not for lack of resources, rapidly dividing bacteria would soon consume the earth in their greedy, sexless orgy of cytokinesis. Now most of these CD’s would be static, noise that didn’t resemble a thing, but buried in the monstrous heap you will find every one of Pink Floyd’s records, and the ones they may have made if there situation were only a little bit different. That assortment of CD’s would contain everything there has been, and everything there could be. The same goes for DVD’s, movies, and TV shows. There’s a limit for everything, possibilities aren’t infinite, and eventually you will run out of ways for things to go, if the experience is placed under any bounds or limits. There’s a limit for CD’s, books, poems, shows, and anything else you might want to define. Given a bound, a limit, and more time than can be imagined, the possibilities of existence will play themselves out, everything will happen, and everything will keep happening, over and over again, ad nauseum, trapped in a penitentiary of eternal time.An addendum:
Take the hypothetical case of the monkey banging away on a keyboard for infinity, what are the chances of said simian coming out with The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, or maybe the King James Version of the bible? The bible has some 3,566,480 individual characters, though I’m not sure whether or not this includes spaces. There are 26 letters in the English alphabet, which one can multiply by two to account for capitalization. So a monkey (or maybe perhaps a president) hammering away on a keyboard would have 52^3,566,480 different ways of writing a book of that length, and one of them would exactly match the King James Bible. Searching through all of the reams of pages to find the bible would take beyond an insanely long time, but it would be of a finite length. Anytime you have a limit, something that constrains the dimensions of whatever it is you’re considering, you reduce all of the different ways it can be to something that’s finite, a thing that will eventually come to an end, or be forced to repeat itself.
Genius’s substance lies not in one’s ability to make arise from whole-cloth, but in finding the path of what’s already there. As I’ve gone over, there are a finite number of possibilities when it comes to something that varies. All of these possibilities exist, but most are, and will remain, unfulfilled. Genius lies in the ability to pick out the great from the chaff, to find the path through the space of possibilities that leads to the most moving novel, or heart rending poem. The genius is not a creator, he is a discoverer, one who unveils what was already there, but hidden from the light. Just as a sculptor doesn’t make a statue from a block of marble, the sculptor’s job is to remove the bits and pieces obscuring the masterpiece that has been there since the block was created. As there is a block of marble that represents all of the possibilities, there is a space of possible novels, of possible combinations of words, and it is the erudite author who maneuvers its way through the space that is mostly made up of random nonsense, until he finds a gem. Answers are out there, they just need to be found, found and separated from the gibberish and the misleading ones. Possibility is finite.
( UPDATE: 4/20/07: I wrote this before I discovered Jorge Borge's essay "The Library of Babel", it deals with basically the same topic. It relates a universe composed of every assembly of characters that can be fit into a book of a set length. His ruminations on the subject were remarkably in line with what I wrote. There are a few online Library of Babel simulators that one might find interesting.)
On Love
There’s a quote about love, that most mysterious of human emotions, that I’ve come across that seems to be apt for how I’ve been feeling recently. It’s from a British author named Neil Gaiman, and it is as follows: "Have you ever been in love? Horrible isn't it? It makes you so vulnerable. It opens your chest and it opens up your heart and it means that someone can get inside you and mess you up. You build up all these defenses, you build up a whole suit of armor, so that nothing can hurt you, then one stupid person, no different from any other stupid person, wanders into your stupid life...You give them a piece of you. They didn't ask for it. They did something dumb one day, like smile at you, and then your life isn't your own anymore. Love takes hostages. It gets inside you. It eats you out and leaves you crying in the darkness, so simple a phrase like 'maybe we should be just friends' turns into a glass splinter working its way into your heart. It hurts. Not just in the imagination. Not just in the mind. It's a soul-hurt, a real gets-inside-you-and-rips-you-apart pain. I hate love". I’m beginning to think that he hit the nail on the head with those words. Love is something that when it works out the way you would like it to, not even morphine can beat, but as is more often the case, things don’t go quite as well as you might like. What is it that lets us give so much of ourselves over, to vest so much of our well being in the whims of another, someone who may or may not be worthy of such a tragic responsibility? This emotion can give you the highest high, but like many drugs, it can at times be unrivaled in the agony, the misery, the absolute unrelenting torture that it can bring to bear on some unlucky fool caught fast in its grip. Love has caused me to lie awake all night, my thoughts racing from one awful thing to another. It has caused me to be able to do nothing else than lay curled up in the darkness crying, with a hollow, empty feeling that’s almost too hard to bear. Love that doesn’t work out the way I wanted it to has caused me in the past to go hungry for days, solely because eating didn’t cross my mind. Love’s such an awful thing, I wish I could go without it, and without the pain that inevitably follows behind it, but I still haven’t given up all hope that someday, things may work out, and while there’s still that little bit of hope, I must continue trudging my way through life, until I collapse under the weight of the world, or love finds a way to work out.
On the Fading of Outrage and the Inevitability of Atrocity
Eventually, things will change. The outrages of today, the assaults on human dignity, the atrocities, and the crimes against humanity will pass into the pages of history, and reading of them will become an academic exercise. Already, for people today, learning of the holocaust doesn’t bring the bite, the pile driver jab to the stomach that it ought to. The machinations of Nazi Germany’s effort to exterminate, to engage in the whole sale bureaucratic slaughter of millions of people deemed unworthy for life, don’t inspire the horror in people that it should. That anything could ever transpire on such a scale, that the human species is capable of that should be terrifying, it’s something that should never lose its power. No matter how much time passes, the fact of the holocaust should always be able to move people to tears, to nausea. Nothing going on today rivals that crime, but there are many crimes today that, while not meeting those epic proportions, are still shockingly brutal, horrific, and, for lack of a better word, evil. What word, if not “evil”, should be used to describe the act of half a dozen men pinning a bound and blind folded man to the ground, while one of them saws through his neck with a knife like someone carving up a Christmas roast or a Thanksgiving turkey? What word, if not “evil”, can describe the maneuvering, conniving, and scheming of people to invade a country, placing hundreds of thousands of their fellow country men at risk, and killing thousands of entirely innocent people in the most brutal ways possible, for reasons not entirely clear and motives not entirely pure? If doing that while knowing that it would destroy lives, families, and futures, unleash a torrent of atrocities, torture, massacres, and countless other misdeed, if doing all of that is not evil, what is? How might something like that not be evil, but two men who love each other getting married is? All of the evil acts of today will fade with time. Eventually, they will lose their power to inspire the raw, unfiltered emotions that they do, in all but a small number of people. They will be replaced with the crimes of their own time, the only thing we can do is try to make sure that the inevitable future atrocities aren’t as barbaric as today’s and those of day’s past. The best we can hope for is to make it impossible, or at the very least harder for tomorrow’s Saddams, Bush’s, Hitlers, Stalins, Nixon’s, and Pinochets to do what they do best. If we are able to ensure that tomorrow's crimes don't exceed or even equal those of today, and those that belong to history, that would be the most success we might realistically hope for.
Saturday, February 17, 2007
from A Letter on the Candidates
The next national election won't be until November of 2008, but already, it's impossible to get away for a brief respite from people talking about who will run, who might run, who could win. who should win but won't, who shouldn't run but will, and on and on, all about a contest almost two years away. You know that in my opinion, the party that's not as bad, are the Democrats. The candidates that they have are a very interesting, very diverse group, without a doubt the most diverse field that there's ever been. There's Hillary Clinton, the wife of our former President Bill Clinton, who's our greatest living President. Barack Obama, a first term senator from
People can't stop talking about Barack Obama, but I think that it's not because they like him as a possible president, but they enjoy the novelty of a black guy who actually stands a chance of winning. I personally like Obama, I think he'd bring a fresh start to the political arena, but I don't know if he has the right qualifications, the necessary amount of experience. He's only been a Senator for two years. I also don't know if there's much more to him than a good looking, charismatic smile.
Hillary has got a huge political machine backing her up, and she has the benefits of her husband being a former president. Other than that, she's not a very remarkable person. Many people dislike her, and won't vote for her no matter what, so I don't think she has much of a chance. She's much too divisive, and this country doesn't need another divisive figure after enduring the horrors of Dubya.
Bill Richardson is the most qualified, with the most experience. He's competently governed this state for the past few years, he hasn't caused any type of large scale catastrophe. He has continued to meet with North Korean officials because he was the Secretary of Energy during the
It would be hard to find someone who would actually do worse than George Bush, so I think that anybody will probably be an improvement. over him.
There was an interesting thing that I saw. If Hillary Clinton becomes President and she gets reelected, which is a possibility, a member of the
Letter on the Victory of Good O'er Evil
What follows is a letter I wrote to a friend on Nov. 9 about the Nov. 7 Elections.
I'm not sure if I can even start to describe how happy I am about what happened Tuesday in the elections we had here. The republicans lost the majority that they'd had for the past four years in the senate, and the past twelve in the house of reps. Finally, there'll be somebody there to stop Bush before he does too much more damage. It isn't that the democrats are very much better, they're just incredibly less worse. They probably won't do many good, productive things, but they won't do nearly as much bad, destructive things. With luck, I'm trying not to get my hopes up, there is the possibility that Bush, and Cheney, and the whole diabolical cabal might be impeached and thrown out in disgrace. Already, Donald Rumsfeld, the Secretary of Defense is out. I'm hoping that many more will follow. After so much bad news for such a long time, this provides the first glimmer of hope that I've had in a long time, and for that, I'm happy.
On God and My God and All That
If there is a god, one that created all of existence (save for itself, I think. A god that existed would necessarily be part of existence, but it couldn't create itself), then it would follow that such a god wouldn't be absolutely perfect in every way, as is posited by the many people that believe in it. A perfect should be content merely to exist, in need and in want of nothing. What could possible disturb the perfect god's equilibrium to cause it to want to create the universe? The act of creation would mean that god had a desire, a need for something, something that it didn't have. A perfect being would have everything it needed, everything that it might possible want. Therefore, at the very least, god's not perfect, because in desiring something, it lacked in something, and lacking is an imperfection. To most people, the idea that god isn't perfect isn't very appealing. Though just because it's not what you want it be, it doesn't follow that perfection would have to be a quality of a being that may have created the universe. Many times, I have heard people relate something similar, or sometimes identical, to an argument named Pascal's wager, after the French mathematician. I used to hold it in high esteem, but since then its irredeemable flaws have become apparent to me. In its basic form is that if there is a god, and said god exists, then you get rewarded with eternal, infinite bliss in paradise or heaven. If, on the other hand, you don't have faith, and there's one, then you get rewarded with eternal hellfire. On the other hand, if there is no god, no matter what you believe, you get nothing, because death only provides you with oblivion, faithful and infidels alike. So given the choices of getting nothing, losing in effect everything, and gaining all the pleasure in the world, the rational mind would go all in on the chance that god exists. Most of the wager's flaws arise from holding many unfounded assumptions, the most egregious being that belief is rewarded and disbelief is punished. Why should you assume that? What justification is there other than that's the most common thing for people to believe? A god that rewards skepticism and punishes believers with a vengeance is at least as imaginable as the traditional conception. Likewise, it's perfectly easy to imagine a god that rewards everyone, or punishes all, or doles out sentences at random whether somebody's a believer or not. That any of these are possible destroys the integrity of the wager, in my opinion, irreparably. It also assumes that belief is something that can freely be chosen. That's something that's very hard for me to accept. No matter how hard I try, it would be impossible for me to believe that George W. has been a great president, or even a capable president. I really do understand the appeal that religion holds for people, it provides a concrete foundation and ready made, clear cut answers to almost all questions (Why X? It's god's will). It is a means of escape, a way to get through the day, because it holds the promise, the allure of better things to come, if only you follow some rules and engage in some rituals. I wish that I could throw myself into religion. If that were possible, it would make my life very much easier, but I can't bring myself to it. To be able to believe in something, I'd have to think that whatever the religion said was the way things actually were. From my experience of the way the world works, it's impossible for me to believe that Jesus arose from the dead, or there was a worldwide deluge, or any of the countless other myths that form the basis of most religions. The beliefs and rituals of religions don't jive with the way I think the world works. A god capable of creating something as majestic as the universe, ought not care about who sticks what body part in which hole. I don't think that such a mighty being would be so insecure as to require our unquestioning devotion. Such a god wouldn't give a damn about what day of the week you paid reverence to him on, or by what name you called it. Such a god wouldn't care if you ate pork, shellfish, beef, or any other food. Such a god wouldn't care how you shaved your beard, or the length of your hair. Such a god would have nothing to do with arbitrary laws for agents it created and controls. A god as mighty and as awesome as the one believed in by so many people, would not be so insecure and vain that it needed the respect and fear of such a tiny, insignificant group as the human race.
Rough Draft Commencement Address
Tonight, I suppose that I'm supposed to speak about what the last four years have been like, how I've changed, how things have changed, and what the future may hold in store. So, to get all of that out of the way, the first two years were great. Suffice it to say, the last two haven't been so good. Due to a cluster fuck, a perfect shit storm of inept, incompetent, tyrannical, and bellicose administrators, arbitrary standards dictated by a goofy child president, and a concerted, systematic effort by others unknown to destroy and dismantle, figuratively and literally, our school, they have succeeded in removing one of the best alternatives that used to be available for students who needed one. We have seen the almost total replacement of the staff, including some of the best and most dedicated teachers I've known. As a result of this, there has been a precipitous decline in the effectiveness of
A Fragment On Iraq
I think that the course the war in
On the War and the Passing of Saddam
There seemed to be something disturbingly morbid and ghoulish over the way the news channels were eagerly waiting for Saddam to be hanged. On CNN, they were proud in saying, "even if the news comes in during a commercial break, we'll cut out of it so you'll be the first to know that he's been executed." I can't say that I didn't welcome news of Saddam Hussein's hanging, he is a man who deserves as much as anybody that fate. Although I fail to see what good it'll do. He was a brutal dictator, and unfortunately there are many dictators who are deserving of what he got, but very few of them reach that point. It's a little reassuring knowing that at least one tyrant met his end where he deserved it. Too many have escaped justice. This year, Slobodan Milosevic and Augusto Pinochet were two dictators with many deaths to their blame. They died naturally; it's fitting that someone who created such violence should receive it. Is there more justice at the end of a rope than there is in a jail cell? I don't know. My personal opinion is that it's better to leave them to rot in a cell. I think that this'll only inflame tensions, and make things worse. I am horrified at the numbers of people killed and hurt in this war, there has been no justice done. This war is sickening, it's revolting, the people who planned it, and executed it, they deserve a rope of their own as much as Saddam did. Even though it may have been justified, or at least justifiable, I can only see how this will only inflame people's anger, and cause even more violence. On Christmas another milestone was reached. The number of American soldiers killed passed the number of people who were killed on 9/11, 2,973. This war is now more of a disaster, at least for the American military, than 9/11 was for the nation. Although, such a comparison doesn't seem very accurate to me. American soldiers wouldn't be analogous to people killed on 9/11, if anything, the best comparison would be to the men who hijacked the airplanes. To compare 9/11 and the
If there is one good thing you can say about Saddam, it is this, in spite of the indignities that he was made to suffer in his last moments on this earth, he carried himself to the end with the most dignity that could be expected of someone in his position. During his life, it is true that he was responsible for some cruel, evil barbarities, but in the face of taunting hecklers as he stood on the gallows with a noose around his neck, he took on the aura of dignified respectability. I am sure that he's cemented himself as an image, a figurehead, a hero, even a martyr, in the minds of many people, and not just the ones who have supported him all the way. I saw the video, the full one that was released and depicted the entire sordid scene. I am against executions for anybody, be it a low-life criminal gangster, or a deposed president, I would even choose to have perhaps the worst monster in the history of the world, Adolf Hitler, locked up for the remainder of his natural life, instead of showing him to the gallows, electric chair, guillotine, gas chamber, or firing squad. However, in states where people do face that penalty, it is usually administered in a bureaucratic way, aiming for something approaching justice. Saddam's execution more closely resembled a mob lynching from another era, than one where the purpose was to try to bring about justice. No one should face a jeering crowd in the final seconds of their life, except maybe Glenn Beck, I hate that fucking man.