the ch!cktionary

    8 Jul 2010

    “My boyfriend was in the Cold War”: A July 4th Retrospect

    Only after spending time in a place where any and all displays of nationalism are tsked-tsked (unless it is football-related of course) have I really begun to notice that American nationalism is unusually strong and sort of scarily so. I’ve long dismissed the notion that there’s any logic to patriotism and have long acknowledged that the American brand of cultural superiority is a particularly distasteful one. But the contrast is especially stark when you live and witness the difference. For example, there is a road in Worcester, Massachusetts that is lined with flags on both sides of the street for blocks and blocks and blocks. And this is totally normal. This would not be normal anywhere else in the Western world. If it happened in Germany, it would probably be interpreted as frightening.

    Anyway, this is all a preamble to a four-day-late re-post of last year’s Independence Day entry:

    I spent July 4th in Boston. This was a first. I wanted to go to Nantucket, but Patrick is allergic to crowds and seersucker and pre-planning. It would never do. I suppose you can only get so patriotic when spending the holiday with your English bulldog and German lover (though, to be fair, Hamlet’s ancestry is just a front for his humble Poughkeepsie puppyhood).

    So instead, we woke up late, me before him, surprised that the weather improved overnight and irritated that some local talking head would certainly point to this as proof of god’s favoritism. 10:30am soon stretched into 11, and 11 into half-shut eyes, and that into unscheduled copulation. It was noon by the time we left, still groggy and blurry-eyed.

    The train to Central Square was empty. Boston generally felt like a ghost town. We spent the first half of our holiday eating outside at Andala Coffee House, where we could still make out the scent of shisha used by the previous night’s patrons. Hamlet sat at our feet, shaded by the table and emerging every so often to sniff at the plates brought out by the waitresses, one of whom got jumpy at the sight of dogs. We transitioned from lunch to work seamlessly. It seemed natural that my MacBook would follow the final course of baklava.  I wasn’t particularly interested in my email or my assignments, but I half-heartedly tapped away at my laptop nonetheless in hopes of accomplishing something before I called it a holiday. Patrick read a new book on China (or maybe it was Russia?) and capitalism or communism or some combination of the above. Two hours later, I traded in Steve Jobs for Ian McEwan and decided to redirect my focus to the fascinating internal monologue of a newly married and extremely repressed couple in 1960s Britain.

    Soon after, we returned to a deserted Beacon Hill and a mildly warm apartment, where we determined immediately upon entrance that we’d accomplish enough for a Saturday. We live walking distance from the Hatch Shell where the Boston Pops Orchestra plays their annual free concert before the fireworks show. Even if we weren’t interested in camping there overnight for seats, there were still the blocks upon tree-lined blocks of the Esplanade, which extends far beyond the performance space, where we could have stood together, one of us with leash in hand, the other with a camera. Still, neither of us was interested in temporarily setting aside our misanthropy to rub shoulders with the New Brahmin Class or their stroller-bound spawn.

    And so, Patrick lugged lawn chairs up five flights of stairs, while I supervised the dog. We watched the slightly terrifying flyover of F-15s from the roof of our building, which offered a perfectly good view of the festivities and none of the annoyance of sharing personal space with the diaper-clad. The lawn chairs, liberated from a neighbor’s balcony, came with holes in the armrest, like imaginary residences for the beer I don’t drink. It was the first night we could sit on the roof without jackets, though the dog still shivered from fright. The fireworks display was longer than expected, an almost distasteful extravagance whose only redemption was that it ended at some point. Every bit as terrified as expected, Hamlet wriggled about in Patrick’s lap. I snuck a kiss, my first with a man under fireworks. We devoured an entire bag of dates during the course of the half-hour show.

    I thought the colorful explosions seemed strangely reminiscent of war, perhaps because our position on the roof offered a seldom-seen perspective of smoke rising ominously over the city. Frankly, I sympathized with Hamlet. From a dog’s point of view, it really must’ve appeared like the world was coming to an end. “It looks like someone is bombing the city,” I told Patrick. He said something vague in response, like, “That could be one interpretation.” I took that to mean that I was getting overly political or reading into things. “But don’t you find the parallelism between patriotism and war ironic?” I insisted. “The low-flying fighter jets earlier, the sounds of the fireworks, the smoke over the River? Weren’t you scared?”

    No, actually, he wasn’t. Growing up in West Germany, he regularly spotted (and more often, heard) fighter planes conducting military exercises overhead. I’d never seen a F-15 before or ever imagined what it might look like over my house. But he already knew.

    “I’m going to tell people that my boyfriend was in the Cold War,” I said to him.

    13 Oct 2009

    “Two things must be remembered about the Nobel Peace Prize. The first is that Nobel was never clear about his intentions for it. The second is his decision to have it awarded by politicians from — and we hope the Norwegians will accept our advance apologies — a marginal country relative to the international system. This is not meant as a criticism of Norway, a country we have enjoyed in the past, but the Norwegians sometimes have an idiosyncratic way of viewing the world.”
    — George Friedman, “Nobel Geopolitics” from STRATFOR’s Geopolitical Intelligence Report

    8 Jul 2009

    What The American Government Doesn’t Want You To Know About Cocaine

    I just finished reading the recently released Cocaine Project, which was conducted in 1995 and just saw the light of day last month. In the meantime, the project has been suppressed — and its very existence denied — due to U.S. government pressure for the past fifteen years. A joint effort between the the World Health Organization and the United Nations Interregional Crime and Justice Research Institute, the report is the “largest global study on cocaine”, according to The Vancouver Sun, and examines cocaine use in 22 cities in 19 countries.

    After reading the findings, it’s pretty obvious why the report was buried for all these years. Sure, there’s the expected disclaimer (“Conclusions of the study require careful interpretation, particularly when making comparisons between different substances of their harmful health consequences. In no way should it be read that WHO or UNICRI endorse the use of any psychoactive substance”) and there are the requisite warnings about physical and mental health repercussions “associated” with cocaine use. However, the authors also leave plenty of room for doubt since they emphasize that the majority of problems result from using multiple substances, not from cocaine use alone. Among the more controversial points made in the report:

    • Health problems from the use of legal substances, particularly alcohol and tobacco, are greater than health problems from cocaine use.
    • Few experts describe cocaine as invariably harmful to health. Cocaine-related problems are widely perceived to be more common and more severe for intensive, high-dosage users and very rare and much less severe for occasional, low-dosage users.
    • A majority of health consequences may not be directly attributed to cocaine use. Cocaine often contributes to or exacerbates the conditions reported, rather than causing them.
    • Despite a broad range of educational and prevention approaches, most programmes do not prevent myths but perpetuate stereotypes and misinform the general public. Such programmes rely on sensationalized, exaggerated statements about cocaine which misinform about patterns of use, stigmatize users, and destroy the educator’s credibility.
    • Most treatment services are poorly coordinated, often culturally inappropriate and ineffective in achieving rehabilitation. Unlike heroin, cocaine dependence has no standard treatment. The majority of people who suffer cocaine-related problems eventually recover without receiving any formal treatment.
    • Law enforcement targets users, dealers and traffickers but is thought to focus its efforts on users. Users of minority background or low socioeconomic status are the ones most subject to arrest and prosecution, while wealthier users are virtually immune to prosecution or rarely imprisoned.

    And perhaps most importantly, the report notes:

    “Most authorities agree that it is unrealistic to expect to eradicate the use of cocaine and other drugs. However, if substance use wilt continue, harm from that drug use need not be inevitable. In most participating countries, a minority of people start using cocaine or related products, use casually for a short or long period, and suffer little or no negative consequences, even after years of use. This suggests it is possible to reduce, if not entirely eliminate, harmful cocaine use.”

    Last year, the World Health Organization noted that the U.S. has the highest rate of cocaine use in the world (16 percent, which is four times the second highest rate in New Zealand). We also have some of the strictest drug laws in the world, and now that marijuana is a less and less controversial issue, people are becoming more aware of the racism, corruption, and general ignorance responsible for its prohibition in America.

    Curious about the full report? You can download the entire PDF here.

    26 Feb 2009

    For 58 years, the Communist regime in Beijing has waged a quiet war against the Tibetan people and their unique culture … The UN, NATO, the United States—any organization or nation with significant international sway—need to put pressure on the Chinese government to cease its suppression of the Tibetan people. The world learned the terrible consequences of imperialism long ago, and we must stamp it out entirely wherever it rears its ugly head. Tibet and its people are some of the world’s most beautiful remaining examples of piety, brotherhood, and peacefulness.

    Obviously, I’m in full agreement that China’s actions in Tibet are nothing short of atrocious. Nonetheless, this article completely rubbed me the wrong way, for a few reasons:

    • By overemphasizing the “peaceful” and “unique” aspects of Tibetan culture, the writer completely misses the point that human lives and rights are valuable in themselves, regardless of whether the “culture” attached is one the Western world deems worthy of preservation. The constant references to “piety”, etc.  implies that the only reason we should act is because the culture worth saving. What if the Tibetans were a bunch of burger-eating, reality TV addicts? Would the eradication of their rights and lives not be a concern since there’s enough burger-eating, reality TV-watching cultures out there?
    • Vilifying China while putting Tibet on a pedestal is more discrediting than anything else. “Communist regime” and “the evil genius behind the Chinese plan”? This just reads like propaganda. How is communism relevant here? No one would describe the US as a “democratic regime” while criticizing our actions abroad. McCarthyism is over, so check your scare tactics at the door of 14 Plympton, please. And statements like “when a television tower is dumped on their shrine, most Tibetans simply smile and keep on praying” are just ludicrous and without merit. I’m guessing that most Tibetans are not thinking happy thoughts for the Chinese government. Are we to believe that the Tibetans are completely devoid of human emotions like resentment simply because of their “unique” culture? Generalizing an entire group of people as perpetually forgiving in the face of eradication is demeaning, condescending, and nearly as bad as eradicating them.
    • It’s completely hypocritical to call for American intervention to STOP THE IMPERIALISTS. We’re suddenly the moral authority, now? You might as well take the last paragraph and replace it accordingly: “We cannot continue to ignore Afghanistan/Vietnam/Cambodia/Iraq, nor can we continue to balk when human rights are in danger. Any organization or nation with significant international sway—need to put pressure on the US government to cease its suppression of the Afghan/Vietnamese/Cambodian/Iraqi people.” Guess what? If this were a Mad Lib exercise, no one would even know the difference.

    Clearly, I am all for ending abuses in Tibet, but all this editorial does is distract from the real atrocities while promoting stereotypes (“Oooh … the peaceful Tibetans!”) and a double standard (when China’s doing it, it’s imperialism; when America does it, it’s “liberation”).

    25 Feb 2009

    I’m beginning to be concerned …

    … that my growing disdain for this country is not as transient as I once thought. There are those who snark endlessly at America’s hypocritical political and economic decisions in hopes that things will someday change, those who eventually become so disillusioned that they become a part of the machine they once criticized, and then there are those who are happy to jump off the sinking ship while there are still life rafts available.

    I think I’ll go somewhere warm and godless. South of France, perhaps?

    24 Feb 2009

    “There were three stages of Cambodia’s holocaust. Pol Pot’s genocide was but one of them, yet only it has a place in the official memory. It is highly unlikely Pot Pot would have come to power had President Richard Nixon and his national security adviser, Henry Kissinger, not attacked neutral Cambodia. In 1973, B-52s dropped more bombs on Cambodia’s populated heartland than were dropped on Japan during all of the Second World War: the equivalent of five Hiroshimas. Declassified files reveal that the CIA was in little doubt of the effect. “[The Khmer Rouge] are using damage caused by B52 strikes as the main theme of their propaganda,” reported the director of operations on May 2, 1973. “This approach has resulted in the successful recruitment of a number of young men [and] has been effective with refugees.” Prior to the bombing, the Khmer Rouge had been a Maoist cult without a popular base. The bombing delivered a catalyst. What Nixon and Kissinger began, Pol Pot completed. Kissinger will not be in the dock in Phom Penh. He is advising President Obama on geo-politics.”

    12 Jan 2009

    “There is no other group as hateful towards their own country as Americans. Well, some Americans - a small group actually but still disturbing. Those who are here from another country are for the most part very proud of where they come from. They celebrate their heritage, they’re happy whenever a fellow compatriot is successful at something, they’re eager to share their culture and history to anyone who’s curious, and they’ll defend their country against any unjustified ill words. They’re not wrapped up in the politics of it, they just love their country. And no, I’m not talking Nationalism here, I’m simply talking love of country. There is a massive difference between the two. So listen up, America hatin’ Americans, this is YOUR country. This is the land that saw you being born, that saw you growing up, that took you as a son. Doesn’t that mean anything to you? Putting politics and government aside, why is it so hard for you to just love America?”

    Randy Haddock

    What exactly is the difference between nationalism and love of country? What is love of country? Why should everyone love their home country simply because it’s the land that “saw them being born”? Would you expect the same kind of unquestionable love from citizens of incredibly impoverished nations or people living under theocratic rule? There’s no reason to be proud when an American athlete wins a medal (it’s not exactly a reflection on yourself) but there’s every reason to be ashamed when politicians you placed in office enact policies that harm Americans and non-Americans alike. If someone criticizes America for its imperialist foreign policy, I’m not going to defend the U.S. just as if someone criticizes China for its censorship, I don’t think a Chinese citizen should defend China. There’s nothing inherently valuable about having grown up in a certain place.

    (By the way, I’ve spent the past week lamenting the lack of Americans in Lech and was very outraged when I overheard a bunch of Brits making fun of Americans. I’d love to have some of my countrymen here, because shared roots and a common culture would be comforting contrasts against the constant barrage of German. Nonetheless, this has to do with familiarity, not this ambiguous love of country.)