It's time to come down

So it seems fears of a Venezuelan-Columbian-Ecuadoran War have come to naught.

This article from the AP summarizes the rather vague details of a deal made between the countries leaders. The core of the dispute, the ideological and possibly material support to FARC by left-wing governments, and the US-backed war against FARC rebels by Colombia, has not been settled, but prospects of war are for right now little.

That's damn good in my book.

But after the talk of war, it is difficult for me to make a post about anything else really. What can compare in terms of gravitas? What can make a good transition to a post of less gravitas?

So instead of transitioning from this talk of war to a logically and atmospherically connected subject, I am going to share with you one of the worst puns EVER!!!

Now at some point in middle school I heard this from a friend, so I can say for certain I didn't think about it myself, but here it goes...

What did Tonya Harding bring to the 1994 Olympics in Norway?

A little hammer.

You get it? Because the 1994 Olympics were in Lillehammer, Norway and because Tonya Harding was involved in a conspiracy to attack a competitor with a blunt object.

Get it?

Not only is pun lame, it is also excessively topical and in generally poor taste.

It is in fact THE WORST PUN EVER!!!

Let's pray for peace

First let me get you up to speed with the particular could be war situation I'm talking about:

Colombia bombed a FARC camp a few miles within the territory of Ecuador. Initially, Ecuador's response was calm, but Venezuela saw this as an affront to Ecuador's territory and part of a US-backed plan to dominate the region. Ecuador then agreed and now both countries have moved their armies to Colombia's borders. Colombia has held its army back but has said that documents it recovered from the FARC camp (which also indicates there was a brief ground mission into Ecuador) show links between Ecuador's government and FARC and more substantial links between Chavez and FARC.

In short, it's a tense situation.

Here's some articles:

Here's the basic situation
Here's an AP News Analyst saying war is unlikely
Time.com puts the raid into the context of the US-backed war against FARC
The Colombian raid killed an important FARC leader, which Colombia is saying is the #2 rebel in FARC.
Ecuador is claiming that the Colombian raid blocked a hostage release.

There's a lot more out there, but be cautious. There are definite biases when dealing with Colombia and FARC. More right-leaning people tend to be pro-Colombian government, anti-FARC. More left-leaning people tend to be anti-Colombian government, but anti-FARC as well. Strongly left-leaning people (mostly Communist sympathizers) tend to be anti-Colombian government, pro-FARC. I personally tend to be pro-Colombian government, with some reservations, and anti-FARC, with a few reservations.

Now for me.

I'm by no means a fan of war. I'm by no means a pacifist either. During the run-up to the Iraq War I did a lot of thinking about when war was justified, overall I vacillated back and forth over whether the Iraq War was justified in particular, but I'm the kind of man who takes a particular circumstance and uses it for some general thinking.

After all, at the time there was very little I could do about the war if it happened. I suppose if I was solidly against it or for it, I could protest. But even if I was that solid in my opinions about the war at the time, which I wasn't, events were moving too fast. For real wars, events always tend to move to fast. I suppose that's why I doubt we'll go to war with Iran, even in tense moments like several tense naval encounters last year, things have moved slowly. With the current Latin American situation however, things are moving fast.

My ultimate conclusion was thus: Governments can be justified in going to war for self-defense or defense of an ally. Pre-emptive war is unjustified. Humanitarian war... is an iffy concept.

But to get back to this particular situation.

I think Colombia made a mistake. Its war with FARC is perfectly legitimate in my mind since FARC is a rebel army that regularly employs terroristic tactics (like massive kidnapping), on the other hand previous Colombian gov. paramilitary backing was massively bad, since those paramilitaries tended to commit many atrocities (while many of the current gov. have alleged links to paramilitaries, I think that these links are not a fatal infection, and this current gov. is one of the first to take concrete action against the paramilitaries). Now FARC has been crossing borders, and Venezuela and Ecuador, who have ideological sympathies with FARC are likely providing the group at least protection (but I'm unsure if the reports of active and significant monetary and military support are true), so Colombia striking within Ecuador's borders (especially since the original reports said Colombia informed Ecuador about the strike, although Ecuador said it was misinformed) is not I think completely outside Colombia's rights. But it's a bad move. If it does not violate international law, it violates international rules of decorum. Colombia was inviting raised tensions with a strike like this.

However raised tensions are one thing. Moving troops to the border and cutting off trade is another. And that's what Ecuador and Venezuela are doing. And that really is unacceptably pushing near war. Again, this isn't beyond international law, but it's beyond international common sense. This is a bad situation.

So let's pray for peace.

Things sometimes are as they are

It is an odd world with borders and all. I feel like many nation-states have been searching for "organic" borders but truly that rarely exists. Most states are the result of empires which forcefully included several ethnicities or are the result of colonial administrative units which did the same. The exceptions are largely in Europe and the Americas, but even there there is massive controversy in many cases. Usually the only areas where controversy over borders is week is where borders have existed in their current form for a hundred or so years. This is pretty rare however when you think globally, so people are bound to be upset by borders and claim that this land was ours historically, or this land has a demographic for us now, or this land had a demographic for us 80 years ago. The truth is demographics change, sometimes forcefully, sometimes non-forcefully, but they always change, and in the end we have to just get used to it. Ultimately the only way to have borders fit populations is to have some world body draw up new borders across the world (because like I said most countries don't have borders that fit with their national demographics), expel all the minorities (usually a process that involves much carnage and heartbreak), and then repeat every so often to account for changing borders. Or we could live with the borders we have, maybe making an exception for massive human rights violations in an area where most of the population favors independence (not just where most of the population is a certain ethnicity). Just a thought.

Memorial Day

I'm planning to try to get a session about Memorial Day done before the day is over, but I don't want to do it if I can't get it right, so if I don't do it, well, to all the veterans out there and to all those who have died in service of their country, thank you.

On Passion: Love, Fury, Ambition, Fanaticism, Devotion and all the rest

Greetings to all those in internet land. I think every once and a while I should start out with a greeting instead of launching right into my main point. What is my main point today you might ask? (You might ask that although knowing you bums you probably won't.) My main point is a defense of religion that segways into a more general discussion of passion. Passion is a pretty essential part of the human condition and a while ago I wrote an essay on it. I actually have quite an archive of old writings and so I thought I'd pull this out and place it here. Now since it is old it lacks the polish of my recent gains in writing ability, on the other hand since it is an essay it is more polished than my average blog. Maybe I'll re-write this sometime and re-post it, but anyways without much further ado (or adoo-doo) let me give you my essay On Passion (with essays I like to go with On this or that because that's how all Cicero's stuff is titled in my old textbooks and well, Cicero rocks).

On Passion

Any student of history and human nature can read off examples of times where religion led to bloodshed or worse. Every religion has its share of madmen, but every religion also has its fair share of saints. The difference between the madmen and the saints is difficult to tell at times, and controversial as well. Some would call all religion a mass hysteria and thus anyone who follows it, no matter how saintly his behavior must then be, at least partially, insane. Their proof is the Crusades, the Jihads, and many other examples of religion gone wrong. Yet it should be noted that atheism has not a spotless record, the countless dead of the USSR and Communist China are the most prominent examples of this. Underneath all the slaughters mentioned is a common root. The Crusades were caused by religious passion, the Communist purges were caused by ideological passion, passion is the link. Passion is a powerful emotion, it can prompt a man to disregard his life and the lives of others, it can give people superhuman strength of will, and in certain people and in certain times, passion is massively contagious. And if all that powerful passion is misled, tragedy occurs. Ideologies, philosophies, religions, and all other forms of belief are based on a degree of passion, for all appeal to that very passionate center of the human soul, the search for the truth. Every belief-system offers the truth. The truth is the fundamental bedrock of a person?s existence, their view on the world, the way they act, these are simply ways of carrying out the truth. Accepting something as that important and that central to a person's life requires passion. And passion is powerful, immensely powerful, and so it can lead to some spectacular monstrosities.

Some believe that therefore all passion should be abandoned. Nothing should become centrally important, and nothing should be accepted as the truth. This belief has a certain appeal, a believer in this idea will never kill for the truth, nor will he die for the truth, nor will he feel the agonizing pain of losing what he thought was the truth. I can understand the appeal, but I cannot believe in this idea. Passion can cause horrors but it can also cause miracles. Passion is what drives people to great acts, and these acts can be both horrible and beautiful. Passion drove Mother Theresa to care for the poorest of the poor. Passion drove Patrick Henry to offer his life for liberty. Passion drove Mohandas Gandhi to demand that every man be treated with respect. Passion drove Horatio Nelson to die to save his country from Napoleon. Passion drove Shakespeare to craft his magnificent plays. Without passion no one can see anything as truly great or beautiful, for that requires a full-hearted, unconditional belief in the truth of beauty and greatness.

Greatness and monstrosity both hail from passion. The dual-nature of passion mirrors the dual-nature of the human soul. Human beings have the potential to acquire power and use it to do great deeds, human beings also have the potential to use power to destroy, corrupt, and annihilate. That is the nature of humanity. Thus while passion can be seen as the root of great evil it must not be abandoned or abolished. For to destroy passion would be to lose our capability for living a beautiful life, and when mankind loses that, we lose our humanity.

This discussion started with religion, and so before it ends we should return to that topic. Religion is an object of great passion, and this alone can explain what evil has been done in its name. Yet passion also explains the great good that has been accomplished by those driven by religion. It would be unfair to say that all good deeds are committed by religious people, but it would be just as unfair to say that religion has never driven anyone to do a good deed. Great deeds of virtue require a person to overcome their fears, their personal problems, and the problems of society, to overcome this a person needs passion, and religion can provide this for some. To the faithful religion has many other benefits, but at the very least it inspires. What religion inspires can be good or evil, but it can inspire the truest sort of greatness. -Rand