What We Have to Lose:Women in the Post-Bush era

Good Morning Readers!

Just recently, I saw something about the history of the Middle East which really amazed me. Namely, a bunch of photographs showing just how common it was in the 1960's and 1970's for women in the Middle East, Egypt, and even Afghanistan to wear miniskirts and other "Western" clothing. Of course the link I posted was interested in why miniskirts would go from being so common to the typical attire in the area being what it is, in such a short time. But two other things were just as conspicuous to me. One was that the pictures included not just miniskirts but also the kind of women's clothing with pants I remember my mother wearing when I was a small child (1970's), and a few women wearing more "conservative" attire which did not amount to a contemporary Hijab. Even sadder were the pictures of Iraq and Afghanistan not only with Hijab free women, but even more conspicuously in better condition than they are in now, thanks in no small part to the Bush administration.
On looking at those pictures, I am reminded of one passage in the book "The Handmaid's Tale" by Margaret Atwood, in which the main character Offred, a woman who among other things must be dressed head-to-toe with in red, while going to the market (the only time she can leave home), looks at a bunch of Japanese reporters. When she sees the women wearing short skirts and loafers she thinks "I used to dress like that."

When it comes to the situations that exist in certain countries, too many Americans react to hearing about it by saying "Boy aren't we lucky to be here instead." whether from the Left or from the Right. But when one looks at how various societies have changed over time, perhaps what more people need to reconsider the common assumption of "It can't happen here." This isn't to deny that some countries are more at risk for a severe dictatorship than others, or that Western society which has comparatively few traditions of forced veiling would be less likely to adopt that particular kind of backlash.

But yet, during the Bush years there was not only pressure to roll back reproductive rights, but they also tried to roll back things like Title IX. A very illogical proposition, when one considers that girls who play sports, are at a lower risk for teenage pregnancy. One would think that anyone who was against abortion would like the idea that something as simple as sports teams can be effective. If they are against that, then I'd have to wonder if this is as much about enforcing gender roles as preventing abortion-or maybe more so.

One obvious engine in the backlash is increase in the number of fundamentalists since the 1970's around the world.

But perhaps a deeper issue, lies with the fact that so many people in their heart of hearts believe that feminism is fundamentally an impractical movement or a luxury of a society with few serious problems.

Marlo Thomas once said that feminists were men and women who knew for a fact that the sexes were equal and wanted society to wake up to that fact, so humanity can stop running on half-strength. Or in other words, that gender roles made individuals and societies less able to deal with whatever problems might come along.

However, one lesson I've learned from post 9/11 America is how many people see these things very differently. Indeed, it is amazing how after 9/11, sort of feminist backlash seemed to be an almost automatic reaction. Early after the attacks there were many references in the media to how the attacks would make career women "re-evaluate their lives", and how things like knitting and baking were sure to become popular. Feminist Susan Faludi upon writing a book about the matter called "Terror Dreams", pointed out that this was a very strange reaction where the terrorist attacks had been committed by about the most anti-feminist group imaginable. Frankly, I couldn't imagine why people were even thinking about such things, at that time.

Equally amazing, is how quickly so many people backed both The Patriot Act and the Iraq War. If some people considered gender equality as only a luxury for a very privileged society, do they also think the same thing is true of democracy or civil liberties? Apparently, the answer is all too often "Yes". Fundamentally, they view female personhood and rights for the *man* on the street, to be not assets that a society can use to solve problems, but a liability.

And this is a point that most feminists have not paid all that much attention to, but could matter a lot in context that includes global warming, water shortages, economic/uncertainties, terrorism, epidemics, natural disasters, and nuclear weapons. Would many people in the US consider another backlash against feminism a logical response to global warming and the associated problem? That is after many of them figure out that it is a real problem after all?

Certainly the history of scapegoating women for just about anything that can go wrong in society is nothing new. When reading the book "The Handmaid's Tale" during the 90's, I had very serious doubts that the Western world could see the same kind of backlash as Afghanistan and Iran. After all did those cultures ever produce large numbers of women like my great-grandmother who immigrated to the US from Ireland all by herself as a teenager and thousands like her in the 19th century? In general the answer would be "Absolutely not".
But on looking at Middle Eastern women of the 60's and 70's dressed like my mother used to in those days, I'm not so comfortably certain about that anymore.
And at some point Western feminism may have to be not just about what women have gained, or how far we have to go. But also about what we could potentially lose, if the wrong factions came to power.

Say Goodnight Readers!

The Mad Hatter's Tea Party!

Hello Everyone!

It seems that ever since the Inauguration of Barack Obama things have been getting curiouser and curiouser in terms of the charges made against the President. Of course, this administration deserves it's share of criticism as does any other. But the "birthers" and other conspiracy theorists who think Obama is a secret Muslim or isn't a citizen seem able to believe at least six impossible things before breakfast.

The absurdity of the things these people come up with will not be covered in any depth here. The question, I care to address are the causes for these peoples' behavior.

There's been a lot of debate about the extent to which racism is a factor. And of course, that is by its very nature hard to quantify. However one point that many people seem to overlook is the fact, that many of these tea-partiers were comparatively silent about Condaleeza Rice and Colin Powell during the Bush years or actively supported that administration and everyone in it.

Furthermore, there is a good to excellent chance that the majority of them voted for Bush over both Gore and Kerry. It's also a safe assumption that many of these people were among those who continued to support the Bush administration to the *bitter end*. And while it is possible that some of them were among the voters (less than 2%) who voted for Ralph Nader(I), Bob Barr(L), Chuck Baldwin(C), or Cynthnia McKinney(G), chances are that most of them voted for John McCain. That is assuming they voted. However, in my experience not too many people are going to show up at an event like a town hall meeting if they are too apathetic or disenfranchised to vote, so I'm going to assume most of them did.

While I have no way of knowing what the actual numbers are, I think it is safe to assume that we have a subset of Americans who fit the following profile:

1) Voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004.
2) Acted as "counterprotesters" against those of us who opposed the Iraq War and the Bush administrations policies.
3) Continued to support the Bush administration post-Katrina even the polls continuously declined.
4) Voted for McCain in 2008.
5) Is currently among the tea-partiers and/or the birthers.

Of course, I'm not making the claim that everyone who opposes the Obama administration and makes comparisons to Hitler fits this profile. For example, the lady who Barney Frank told off in a town hall, identified herself as a member of the LaRouche Movement. Now for those of you who aren't familiar the LaRouche Movement are the cult-like followers of the colorful Lyndon LaRouche. A group that sort of has to be dealt with first-hand to be believed!! There are differing stories about what that group has endorsed at different times. But they are both notorious for inappropriate and offensive comparisons to the Nazis, and have at times been known to deny the Holocaust. Other big shticks of that group have included conspiracy theories involving the Anglo-Swiss banking establishment, the claim that environmentalism is "dead" and an anti-human ideology, advocating endless infrastructure projects that would make the Three Gorges Damn look unambitious, boosterism for 1,000 new nuclear power plants in the US, and the claim that every political group outside theirs is morally and intellectually bankrup. Everyone who gets involved in political activism in a cosmopolitan city runs into this bunch sooner or later. To expect otherwise is like trying to be a hippie and expect never to be approached by the Hare Krishnas.

But I digress.

Despite various other factions, I think it is safe to say that there are some people who fit all five of the criteria listed. Having been involved in the anti-war movement through most of the Bush era, I can tell you that the behaviors of the tea-partiers and the more angry pro-war ralliers are very, very similar. In fact, one of the main reasons I don't think racism is the sole or even necessarily the primary cause, is the amount of venom I've seen worked up at anti-war demonstrations that tended to be predominantly and in some cases were nearly 100% white.

During the 2004 election, those who opposed Bush made much of the fact that Kerry's record as both a Vietnam Vet and protester ultimately counted so little, in terms of his ability to defeat Bush. Also a common rallying point among the most loyal Bush supporters was his faith. However four short years later McCain's Vietnam record seemed serve him much better than Kerry's did, as far as convincing the Right that he was fit to be President. In another reversal of Bush vs. Kerry you have the fact that Obama is by all accounts a much more religious person than McCain. For John McCain has a lifelong record as a very cynical guy, who tended to be rather apathetic about religion except when it became inconvenient for him politically. In fact, as much as Kerry's professed Catholicism "failed to convince middle America", he too is probably more sincere than "McCain the Evangelical". Yes, this time Obama did win. But in 2008 only a couple million fewer people voted for McCain than voted for Bush in 2004. And McCain actually got more votes in 2008 than Bush got in 2000, thanks to rising voter turnout in the 21st century so far.

One simple conclusion might be hypocrisy. But it is reasonable to suggest that for certain people Kerry was the "wrong kind of Vietnam Vet" and Barack Obama the "wrong kind of religious". One possibility suggested by a psychologist named Dr. Robert Altemeyer is that for some people patriotism, religiousity, and admiration of the military and its veterans are simply a named tagged on to an "authoritarian personality". Of course, like every psychological theory it warrants being taken with a grain of salt. In the 1960's many people tried to use the same theory to explain racism and fascism, at the time the Freudian model was the dominant way of trying to understandstand how such personality types would develop. Now there are a wider variety of explanations on the table.

But whether some of these people are Authoritarian personality types and indeed if that is a valid label (some psychologists are skeptical of terms like "type A personality" and such), it does seem that what they want is beyond some specific set of items such as faith, veteran status, patriotism (as it seems no liberal can ever be the "right kind of patriot"), and so on. Some of these people seem to be searching for a sort of narrow idea of what the US should be. Newer theories about what motivates people politically may yet show some surprises. Given Barbara Ehrenreich's book linking war to our heritage as a prey species, and the works of thinkers like Jerry Lembcke, Ira Chernus, and other our understanding of these things may take some unexpected directions.

If we dare to see how far the Rabbit Hole truly goes when it comes to the nature of the right!

Say Goodnight Readers!

Healthcare Thenardier

Hello Everyone!

Today I'm going to write about what's wrong with our health system. Part of the problem is certainly that we are the only industrial nation that doesn't have a "public option" in terms of health coverage. But perhaps the larger issue, is the fact that Americans increasingly pay more and get less when ti comes to health care-as opposed to just health insurance. And many pundits have tried to blame it on things such as malpractice lawsuits, bad health habits, or even higher life expectancies than existed 200 years ago. (So much for saying it's the Obama administration that wants "death panels".) But the sad truth is that the Insurance Industry has just gotten greedier, greedier, and greedier.

Since I have been dealing with my insurance company lately, a certain tune from the musical "Les Miserables" keeps coming into my head.

That's right the health insurance industry is beginning to remind me of Master Thenardier: The greedy inn-keeper in Les Miserables.

The fact, of the matter is that not only are Americans on the whole paying more and getting less, but they are doing so largely as the result of unbriddled greed on the part of an insurance industry and HMO industry that has completely foresaken what's fair and honest, in favor of what fattens their profit margins.

I'm sure M. Thenardier would be impressed with the devious imaginations of certain insurance companies. That is the reason they come up with to limit coverage, to not count certain medical costs towards a deductible, and above all deny coverage. And that's before one even deals with something called copays. The main reason is that insurance companies want to maximize the amount of money they receive in return for having people on their policy, and minimize how much they have to spend on actually paying medical bills for their customers. And it's not just the patients that are getting squeezed, but the doctors are also experiencing pressure from insurance companies that are constantly seeking their reimbursements. And in contrast to the administration's desire to give the public more choices in terms of both public and private insurance while bringing down prices, the status quo has involved drastic increases in the profit margins of health insurance companies, as the industry has become more and more monopoly oriented. And as history shows, monopolies have always gotten to set whatever prices and terms they want without any fear of competition.

Another issue of course, has been the dramatic increases in hospital costs. While hospitals may not have gone as far to add surcharges for mice, looking in the mirror, or sleeping with the windows shut, they do come up with exorbitant charges for some very basic things. For example there was the case of a hospital charging $791 for a $12 pair of stockings. With no comprehensive plan to make hospital care more affordable the dominant solution has become for hospital stays to become shorter. But often that just defers the cost to other portions of society. For example if somebody is discharged from the hospital days or weeks early than they would have been 20 years ago, than often a friend or relation has to take care of them. And often at least one of those people ends up taking time off work for it. Thus, deferring the cost not only to friends and family, but often to the businesses, employers, and coworkers. Other non-monetary sacrifices end up being made by various members of society, be it the 3rd class who gets a substitute teacher because their teacher is taking care of somebody, the coworkers who have to take on extra hours, or the business that has to extend a deadline to the displeasure of a customer.

Furthermore, when medical bills have become the most common reason for bankruptcy, the economic burden gets spread around to every sector of society in both direct and indirect ways.

While most of the debate has focused on the number of people in the US, who have no insurance and no way of paying for any major health problems. But perhaps equally important is the loss of more intangible things.


One loss than many people lament is actual attention from their doctor. One amazing commentary on our current society is how what was once taken for granted by many people, including one Depression era coal miner's daughter is now regarded as a sort of privilege for the very wealthy.


For this reason we need reform. Or else Healthcare Thenardier is likely to only get worse, and worse, and worse over time.

Say Goodnight Readers!

The Broken Window Fallacy

Hello Everyone!

I'd like to address a myth that I think has very serious consequences. Namely, the idea that war is good for the economy, that WWII brought the US out of the Great Depression while the New Deal was ineffective, and that wars like Vietnam and Iraq or the build up of weapons are the only way to prevent a big permanent economic downturn that will make the 1930's look like fun.

Now some cynics will respond "So what? If so many people are willing to support Vietnam or Iraq for money, they are so morally bankrupt that it's no good trying to convince them that their money is safe either way." Of course, there's a truth in that. But one thing I've learned not to underestimate is the power of uncertainty in keeping people from taking a clear cut position one way or another.

For example global warming deniers may not be keeping people from action so much by making them feel that there is nothing to worry about. They effect may be more about keeping people in a state where they are just not sure, and thus in a state of paralysis where they don't think, "OK this problem is real. What do I do about it? Should I start using public transit more or biking to work sometimes? And after that then what? How can I help carbon neutral energy get off the ground? What do I need to back politically?"

Similarly if people believe that various wars or build up are warding off some horrible economic depression, they might not so much be thinking "Yes! I support the war because I want to have more money." They may be looking around at who in their community might lose their job and then decide that they just don't know if opposing the Iraq War is the right thing to do. And indeed for most people that sort of uncertainty can create sort of fear of unknown consequences.
When people look at the differences between Vietnam and Iraq era protests, a lot has been made of the draft as a factor. However many people who protested the Vietnam War were in no real danger of being drafted. Could one overlooked factor be the differences in the economy? Could it be that the Vietnam War happened mostly during a prosperous period (though after the war came some nasty recessions), while Iraq has occurred during a miasma of recessions, economic uncertainty, various bubbles, and a sort of disconnected fear over both terrorism and the possible loss of one's job?

Usually the argument for war being good for the economy boils down to the fact that a certain amount of manufacturing goes into making weapons and hardware, manufacturing uniforms, and providing the war effort with other material needs. However, this assumption has been referred to by some, as "The Broken Window Fallacy". A concrete example of this error would be something like this:

A child throws a baseball or a brick into the window of a baker's shop. Therefore the baker has to spend $250 on a new window. This means that the window maker has made a $250 profit and now has money to spend at the dressmaker's, the candy maker's, the milkman's and perhaps other local businesses. Therefore the young vandal, has actually done the community a favor because going around breaking windows actually stimulates the economy.

But does it? Of course, the $250 that the baker spent replacing his broken windows is $250 that he can't spend on something else. He also might have saved the money, and in fact, a population where a lot of people have substantial savings has concrete benefits over one where everyone spends everything on a hand to mouth basis, as the credit bubble has demonstrated all too well.
And if all the neighborhood kids take a lesson and continue to break the baker's window he may put off or cancel a larger project to upgrade the bakery, which would lead to far more jobs than simply fixing a window.

Similarly the money spent on weapons and on the Iraq War, is also money that could be spent on a number of things whether by the government or by private citizens. The most popular suggestion is typically schools. But one major need in the US, is to fix the lagging infrastructure with regard to roads and water related things such as treatment plants or pipes. Other projects could theoretically include things such as promoting solar thermal power plants, building public transits, preventing erosion in the Midwestern United States, and other worthy projects.

Another thing that "everyone knows" in the myth that war is good for the economy is the notion that WWII brought the United States out of the Great Depression. Now that one may have succeeded at stopping Hitler, but it was not good for the US economy. In reality the Great Depression ended long before WWII and was significantly alleviated by The New Deal. During WWII, a different kind of economy took hold and with rigid price controls, rationing, shortages, increasingly state planned industry, and with a very large military to artificially suppress unemployment counts. Therefore most of the peacetime indicators of economic prosperity became misleading if not meaningless. Also after WWII, there was another recession in 1948-1949, before the DOW reached 1929 levels in 1953. So WWII may have defeated Adolf Hitler, but it did not have anything to do with ending the Great Depression.

What is the real agenda when people say that Roosevelt's programs did nothing to alleviate The Great Depression? Sometimes it's about a laissez faire ideology in which any government intervention is frowned on. But in the current American context, there is an inevitable pro-war subtext. Basically the message goes:

"Internal government actions are useless in the face of economic depressions. Only warfare and arms build-up can protect you from job loss and a life of poverty."

The threat/warning becomes inescapable. Wars are seen as not just a matter of defense, but a last ditch effort to avoid ending up sleeping on the streets, or ending up like the many Wall Street brokers who committed suicide or started selling apples because they lost everything.

But the broken window fallacy has implications for environmental destruction. Environmental activist David Suzuki once suggested that ruining public water was profitable because people would "have to" drink bottled. As it turns out bottled water is not much of a solution to ruined water. More importantly, you once again have the classic broken window scenario where the economic winners are obvious, but the losers may be harder to identify.

The moral here is not to give any false credit to naughty children who go around breaking windows, or naughtly leaders who go around invading other countries for no good reason.

Say Goodnight Readers!!

New Currents in Evolutionary Thought and Prehistory

Come gather round primates, where'er you roam.
And admit that the waters around you have grown.
And accept that soon you'll be drenched to the bone.
And if the time to you is worth saving.
Then you better starting swimming or you'll sink like a stone.
For the times they are a changing.

Come Socio-biologists, please here the call.
Don't stand in the doorways, don't block up the hall.
For he who gets hurt will be he who has stalled.
There's a battle outside and it's raging.
It will soon shake your windows and rattle your walls.
For the times they are a changing.

Hello everbody!

This was a little song I made up, in honor of some of the new ideas about human evolution that are just starting to be taken seriously. 200 years ago Charles Darwin published the book "Origin of the Species" which suggested that humans were closely related to African Apes, which was at the time a controversial idea. And generally the view that the differences between humans and apes such as chimps and bonobos came from leaving the trees for the Savannahs, has been unchallenged by scientists (as opposed to those who reject evolution, of course). Many versions of this theory, take the view that warfare is the result of aggressive violent instincts that were shaped on the Savannahs, commonly known as the "killer ape" theory. This has deeply informed the conventional wisdom of our time. Indeed, a generation before Darwin came the Prussian military strategist Carl von Clausewitz who said that war was simply politics by other means, or a Darwinian struggle for resources. A view further reinforced by Marx.

And yet, a number of newer ideas seem to being gaining credibility. Perhaps the most significant recent event was at the 2009 TED Conference where Elaine Morgan discussed the Aquatic Ape Hypothesis. Namely the idea that human beings are different from chimps and bonobos because of time spent living a semi aquatic lifestyle.

See video here.

One interesting point about Alistair Hardy: During the time he was keeping quiet about his aquatic ape theory, he worked at Oxford and knew JRR Tolkien. Therefore, it has been speculated that this theory was the inspiration for the creature Gollum, who after all was described as coming from the "river folk" who were the ancestors of the Hobbits in the Third Age.

Of course, it's hard to know for certain where science will go in the future. But TED has a long reputation as a spring board from the margins to the mainstream, for ideas. And the case has been made that so much that has been assumed about human evolution for decades is under question. It appears that humans did not evolve on the Savannah's and the idea that our ancestors might have had a semi-aquatic phase, at the very least raises some important questions. Another important question is whether our ancestors were more like the chimpanzee or more like the bonobo. Until the 1990's a surprising number of people with degrees in biology had never even heard of a bonobo, and chimps got all the press as our closest living relatives. As bonobos began to get more attention in part because of primatologist Frans de Waal, some observers wondered why they had been ignored for so long.

Then there are other theories about human evolution that are starting to enter the margins. Perhaps the most surprising was the book "Blood Rites" by Barbara Ehrenreich where she begins with humanity's history as a prey animal in order to investigate the root cases of war. In this book she talks about the evolution of blood sacrifice as both ritual and warfare over the millenia. But other ideas question what exactly we may know about:

1) The relationships between modern humans and Neandrathals.
2) Whether prehistoric societies truly resembled the hunter gatherer groups we see today.
3) When humans started making textiles.
4) How far back civilization actually goes.
5) When and how agriculture and domestic animals evolved.

Many of these areas started with assumptions that were made in the 19th century, but where new evidence has put the conventional wisdom under question.

Above all the answers to these questions may be full of surprises.

Say Goodnight Readers!

Water Saving Tip #5: Learn to Recognize Bad Solutions

Hello Everyone!

As I look through the talk about global water issues, one thing never fails to stand out: Bad solutions. Solutions that are so stupid, that one doesn't know where to begin in pointing out their flaws.

In 2007, much of the Southeastern US experienced the worst drought in decades. And it goes without saying that most of these states are not known for being quick to adopt water conservation measure, water recycling and such. However Georgia Governor Sonny Perdue had an idea: Pray for rain. Or more specifically to hold prayer meetings on the steps of the State Capitol. Of course, this wouldn't have necessarily bad such a terrible idea. If the Governor had done his praying in a manner that didn't violate the First Amendment. And if he had actually added some practical measures to the plan. For example environmentalists had long pushed for a limit on drilling new wells, and the state government didn't do it.

Another example of bad water saving strategies came in a chapter of Anita Roddick's book "Troubled Waters" where in the final chapter she describes the following four ideas "creative and noble" attempts to overcome water shortages.

1) A family in the US bought a king sized water bed which contains 1,500 liters of drinking water in the case of any temporary shortages.
2) Many residents of Warsaw shower during the evenings, because water rates are lower during those hours.
3) People in Kunming China put metal boxes with locks on their outdoor taps to prevent water theft.
4) Hungarian farmers raise pigs and goats instead of cows because the former require less water.

Do these solutions make any sense to you? What's wrong with any of these pictures? Personally, I would describe these solutions.

1) Stupid: So the family buys a king sized water bed and plans to use it in the event of shortages? For one thing a water bed is an energy hog which is not good for the water situation either directly or indirectly. Don't they know that there are cheaper, more earthquake proof, and more practical ways to have an emergency water supply? Or that a shortage time might not be the best time to dismantle one's bed? Or that if they have to leave home with it, carrying the bed wouldn't make things easier?

2) Irrelevant: If Warsaw residents shower at night for a lower rate they are probably saving money. I've heard of it being done in other places including the US at various times. Admirable frugality, but ultimately little to do with even conserving water let alone coping with serious shortages.

3) Sad: If people in Kunming, China find it necessary to lock up their taps to prevent water from being stolen. Basically this says that some people are desperate enough for water, that they would "steal" from somebody else's tap if they had a chance. While, the price of water and relatively poverty in much of China, might make it unfair to condemn people for this practice, it is a tragic situation that water would literally be kept "under lock and key", like that.

4) Far from original: The idea of raising goats and pigs rather than cattle to save water is a well known tactic, and nothing new.

Also remember that notion in the 80's that in order to save water, it would be desirable to wear disposable paper clothing, and use paper plates and cutlery rather than spend the water and detergents washing clothes and dishes? It turns out that doesn't work out so well when one considers the large amounts of water that go into making paper and plastic.

But as usual the worst ideas about solving water problems tend to be the large scale ones. Perhaps the most talked about has been privatization, which turned out to be a disaster in a number of places. Also water privatization has got its foot into the US in recent years. If privatization is a bad idea, certainly it is an even worse idea for companies such as AIG to get into the business of owning water utilities. What is the hydrological equivalent of a credit default swap? Nothing good, I'm sure.

The worst idea for solving water however, would be fighting wars over access to it. Yet, many have expressed the fear it may happen in the 21st century. And in that case the worst idea of all would be having a nuclear war over water. (Kind of defeats the purpose doesn't it?) But unfortunately some concerns have been raised over water conflicts between India and Pakistan, both of which have nuclear weapons.

Be on the alert for other bad ideas. And.

Say Goodnight Readers!

Serious Questions about George W. Bush and Dick Cheney

Hello Everyone!!

Although the Bush era is technically over, I'd like to raise some issues about why George W. Bush and Dick Cheney could do the sorts of things they did. And for over eight years now, I've seen much made of two things:

1) They both came from very affluent families.
2) Neither of them were in Vietnam.

But personally, I don't think either of the above go all that far in explaining either of their behavior. To blame wealth or some "missed Vietnam Syndrome" for their willingness to inflict the kind of damage on other human being that they did, is a cold hard slap in the face to the moral reasoning and intelligence of ordinary human beings. That they did these things without losing a night's sleep for it, as far as anyone seems to know, reveals something far more sinister than simple ignorance.

Admittedly both of these views get on my nerves. In fact, I think they are such poor explanations for their behavior that it almost negates the severity of what they've done. Personally, I expect normal teenagers and even normal third graders to be able to understand why telling lies that result in the deaths of thousands of people is wrong.

Therefore, to say that those men acted as they did because they missed Vietnam, gives them an excuse. An unflattering excuse perhaps, but an excuse nonetheless. An excuse that they flat out do not deserve. And that has been backhandedly given to them, at the expense of many other people who were their age and were not in the Vietnam, but were very dedicated to protesting the war then and still are now.


I don't feel that growing up wealthy and having never seen combat can explain the sheer callousness towards other human being required to start a war on false premises and cause the deaths of an unknown number of people. And in fact, we don't know how many Iraqi civilians were killed, but even the most conservative estimates make it dwarf the number of US fatalities. Historically nearly every US President and Vice President who orchestrated a war suffered immense amounts of doubt and anguish over the sheer amount of suffering that their actions were causing. Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and Lyndon Johnson all experienced massive amounts of remorse and sorrow over it. And there is no solid evidence that Roosevelt (He had a stroke while doing it!!), who in fact did grow up wealthy and never served in the military, was drastically different from Abraham Lincoln who grew up in poverty and who was a veteran of the Black Hawk War. And it got to Johnson, despite the fact that he was known for being a fairly ruthless individual, whose sense of ethics are not universally remembered as above question.

So if the conventional explanations for these guys' behavior don't hold water, where does that leave us?

I'm not a diagnostician and don't think that we know everything there is to know about why people are the way they are. 40 years ago, the conventional wisdom had it that people are basically pure products of their environment, primarily their relationships to their parents during the first five years. When I was a biology student in the 90's the conventional wisdom was summed up by, "It's all in the genes." Nowadays there's a common idea that people are the result of both nature and nurture. Of course, there are competing ideas such as the notions children are mostly socialized by peers, or that birth order mostly determines one's politics. My personal opinion, is that it's too complex for any one unifying theory to "explain it all".

But regardless of who's wrong or right, it's clear that both Bush and Cheney both show an extreme lack of concern for the effects of their actions on other people.

It's been reported that Bush used to blow up frogs as a child, something that most psychologists agree is a bad sign in a kid. Other people looking to Bush's childhood for clues, have looked at the fact his three year old sister died when he was seven. As a reason that a person might lack empathy, that strikes me as more credible than "missing Vietnam" or coming from a wealthy family. But at the same time, a lot of people have lost siblings and still find the things Bush and Cheney have done appalling. One psychoanalyst suggested the difference between Bush's reaction to his sister's death, vs. a peace activist who claimed to be influenced in that direction by the early loss of a sibling may lie in the Bush family's unwillingness to talk openly about such things. However, it's also reasonable to argue that W, inherited his lack of compassion much more directly from his family members, including Dear Old Dad. His father had a Machiavellian history that involved a war of political expedience, and his actions as head of the CIA. And his grandfather made money off the rise of the Nazi War Machine.

In the final analysis that sort of debate goes into a realm, where we simply don't have all the answers. But either way, Bush's lack apparent lack of a conscience started before most Americans could locate Vietnam on a map. By the time Bush was a young man the pattern was awfully clear. During his much ballyhooed fraternity days, Bush was actually involved in a scandal where he defended his frat, Delta Kappa Epsilon's, practice of hazing new pledges by burning them with coat hangers. Torture and interrogation practices? Complete denial of wrongdoing, anyone?
And if finding Jesus didn't install a basic sense of right and wrong, I'm not going to take it as a given that a year of combat would have.

Dick Cheney has not received the same level of public psychoanalysis. However, one incident stands out in my mind as an indicator of just how ruthless and unconcerned for other people Cheney truly is. Namely the time he shot his own friend in a hunting accident and did not seem to doubt his role in the Iraq War because of it. In a human being with anything resembling a normal conscience, one would expect the experience of accidentally harming and potentially killing a friend would prompt some re-evaluation or inventory of one's life, especially if that happened to include promoting a war. But all the evidence indicates that he didn't. And in the post Bush era, he has continued to support Bush era policies and has suggested that he actually pressured Bush to be even more extreme.

Of course, I didn't say as much about the fact that both men grew up relatively wealthy. But then again so did Ted Kennedy, may he rest in peace. And as a Senator he did not display the same indifference to other people, that permeated everything Bush and Cheney did.

Say Goodnight Readers.