Munich, Part 2

So, despite my lengthy post below, I have not yet exhausted my thoughts on the subject of violence and the mushy thinking that accompanies discussions of it. Now, as I noted below, my recent ruminations on this topic have been prompted by movie reviews of Munich. And, admittedly, movie reviews are not exactly a sophisticated realm of socio-political discussion. Most of things I have read in these review echo arguments that I have heard again and again elsewhere.

First, to return to the topic of revenge in Munich. One thing that bothers me about the discussion surrounding this movie is that revenge is discussed absent the concept of alternatives and the fact that Israel was de facto at war with its enemies. In war, killing one's enemies is not considered to be morally problematic. So why are the killings in Munich presented as morally troubling "revenge" killings? They are no more revenge than the Allied invasion of Normandy was "revenge" for the Fall of France. Also, what was the alternative? Revenge is considered wrong in law-abiding societies because it substitutes extra-judicial killing for the legal process. But there was no real chance to apprehend and try those behind the Munich massacre. (Besides, when Israel apprehended and tried Adolf Eichmann for his role in the Holocaust, it was widely criticized for its methods. In fact, some argued Israel should have just killed Eichmann instead of proceeding with a show trial.)

Second, one oftens hears complaints about the use of the word "evil" to describe terrorists, murderers, psychopaths, genocidaires and other assorted folk. This word does not lead us to better understand these people. Perhaps not. But here is the definition of evil. It applies. And to not use the word displays, to me, a greater lack of understanding. It is to refuse to call a spade a spade, and then to pat yourself on the back for doing so. It is ignorance masquerading as sophistication. Those who shoot, hack, or starve to death innocent people are evil. This does not, it is true, reveal the nature of there malevolence, nor their motives. But it does pass moral judgment on the killers, and that is, unto itself, useful. The greatest problem with discussing genocide is not that we are too quick to call the perpetrators evil, it is that we are too slow to. And that tardiness in identifying evil leads to tardiness in combatting it.

Munich

So yesterday I read my first review of Munich, the new Steven Spielberg movie about Israel's counterterrorism operation against the Black September terrorists who massacred the Israeli Olympic team in 1972. And my conclusion is this: movie reviewers shouldn't write about politics. Now, granted, this review was in The Onion, but still. The review was peppered with several of the grating tropes that populate commentary on the Middle East by people who don't know much about the subject.

The movie concerns the psychological and moral toll taken on the Israeli agents who carry out the killings, which is certainly an improvement over standard action movies where heroes kill without any remorse or second thoughts. It also has the important benefit of being true to the real story, and true to what we know about soldiers in general. However, the implication that reviewers have drawn from the movie (which I think is Spielberg's intention, given his comments elsewhere) is that basically, the movie shows the futility and immorality of vengeance. They note the uselessness of the "cycle of violence" and the "tit for tat" that characterize politics in the Middle East.

The frustrating thing about these terms is that they are both condenscending (to both the Israelis and the Palestinians) and largely meaningless. First of all, the "cycle of violence" is condemned loudly and often by all manner of commentators, but almost always with the implied solution that Israel should not retaliate against Palestinian atrocities. That is, Israel should step forward and put morality first. Rarely if ever are the Palestinians the ones encouraged to break the cycle. This is insulting to both sides. It seems to imply that the Palestinians are incabable of moral reasoning, and therefore cannot be expected to restrain themselves. It likewise holds the Israelis to a higher morality - they should countenance atrocities in the name of the peace process.

Furthermore, the "cycle of violence" seems to imply that A commits an atrocity, and then B commits an atrocity, and then A, and then B ..., as if all atrocities and all violent acts are equal. This is simply not the case. Some acts, such as the Munich massacre, are on such a scale (whether in terms of lives lost or the callousness of the act) that they cannot simply be brushed aside and lightly forgiven or ignored. And this goes both ways - when it appeared in 2000 that the Israeli army had deliberately gunned down a child, Muhammed al Durah, this was an act which went beyond the day-to-day violence and tragedy in the Middle East. The Palestinians could not simply forgive this crime (or alleged crime, as it now seems that the event may have not occurred as originally reported). In these situations, a response is necessary, and the response is necessarily violent.

But too often, these responses are dismissed as simply "vengeance," meant to imply that there is no other purpose than killing the killers to get even. But this is not true. Counterterrorism is concerned with killing the killers because that prevents them from striking again, because it puts them on the defensive, because it holds the individuals responsible accountable, because it achieves the strategic end of not giving in to terrorism. It short, there are a number of good reasons to kill those who have attacked you, especially when the attack is brazen and indiscriminate. Vengeance this is not, it is strategy, it is politics.

Finally, critics of the "cycle of violence" fall back on one last argument - what has 50 years of violence achieved? Well, Israel has survived. It has maintained and even expanded its borders. It is prosperous and modern. It is democratic. It has given the Jewish people a homeland. In short, 50 years of violence has accomplished a great deal. This is not to say that peace would not have been preferable. But peace was never really a choice. Instead, Israel has made hard choices, and they have included several mistakes. But to dismiss out-of-hand what has been remarkably successful strategy is simply unfair.

Power Grab

So the President thinks that he has the right to operate domestic spying operations without warrants? Huh. There are a million good articles written on this subject already, so I'm not going to bother linking to any. Go to any political or news site and you'll find a dozen or two.

But what really strikes me about this is what a completely audacious power grab this was by the President, and how it is exactly the sort of Executive Branch overreach that the Founders feared. Basically, the President felt that the existing laws passed by Congress did not grant him the power he needed, and that they hampered him by requiring that he obtain warrants from the Judicial Branch. So what did he do? He simply decided to go ahead and take the power he wanted regardless of the checks on his power imposed by the other two branches of government. And, most disturbingly, he did so in complete secrecy, such that no one would have even known about it without the skillful reporting of the New York Times.

Think about this, the President has claimed (based on laughably ridiculous Constitutional arguments) that he may do whatever he wants if he feels that it is within his power. And he feels almost no need to justify or explain his actions. That's exactly how our system is not supposed to work. And it is entirely consistent with other Bush Administration moves to increase the power and reduce the transparency of the Executive Branch. The actual substance of the policy is irrelevant.

Musical Frankenstein

So I found a link to an cool song creation site. (Note that you have to disable pop-up blocking.) Anyway, you just enter some words, and it creates a track using clips from famous songs. It doesn't matter what you enter - you could even enter this post.

Lazy Reviewers

So the other day I was reading a review of Wilco's Kicking Television and the reviewer was talking about how Wilco had gone through several different incarnations. True enough. But then he referred to the band during the Summerteeth period as being "Beach Boys knock-offs" or something like that. And here's the thing - using harmonies does not make a band like the Beach Boys. But you would never know it by reading music reviews. Every band that harmonizes is compared to the Beach Boys (melodic songs earns you a Beatles comparison, literate singer-songwriters are hailed as Dylan).

Anyway, I realize that writing music reviews is difficult - as Elvis Costello (among others) said "Writing about music is like dancing about architecture." But still, be a little original. Try to write without constant comparisons to other bands, because no two bands truly sound alike. Or at least admit that a band is a mixture of different elements from different influences. And try to avoid comparisons to the biggest acts in history. Wilco never sounded like the Beach Boys. Elliott Smith never sounded like the Beatles. Conor Oberst is not the next Dylan (subscription required).

Murderdeathkill, Part II

As an update to my previous post, I hereby request that my faithful reader(s) [Hold on, lemme count. Let's see ... 1 .... That's it? Shit.] submit their plan(s) for their own murders. Remember, nothing banal. The plan must be fiendish in its intricacies.

Murderdeathkill

So obviously, everyone in the world has thought about how they're likely to die, how they'd like to die, what the worst way to die would be, etc.

But today, I was thinking about what would be the most effective way for someone else to murder me. Now, I suppose the most effective way would be to drop an atomic bomb directly on me or something like that. But I'm thinking of something more elegant than that.

And what I came up with is this: poisoned pretzels.

I love pretzels, and I pretty much can't not eat them if they're around. Even if I knew that they were poisoned, I'd probably still eat them.

Now, thing is, I'm also very sensitive to how my pretzels taste. So my murderer should either use something that won't effect the favor and/or will kill instantly. I'd recommend iocaine powder (odorless, tasteless, dissolves instantly in liquid, and is among the more deadly poisons known to man).

Also, my murderer should be careful to pick a type of pretzel that I'm fond of, just in case I'm being a bit picky that day, or I'm not that hungry. None of this Rold Gold shit. The pretzels must have the correct crunchiness, saltiness, density, and dryness. Of course, I'm not going to give my exact preferences in all of these categories, because that would make things too easy for my potential murderer. I mean, I'm already providing him/her with a plan, does he/she really expect me to fill in all the details, too? If so, you are one lazy murderer.

Anyway, in conclusion, poison some good pretzels and you'll probably get me. Or just find yourself an atomic bomb. Either way.