Point… Similar Point

Ro and I have been discussing the Middle East since the President’s address a few nights ago. What follows is the exchange so far (but stay tuned for more thoughts). Please note that while Ro’s opinions are well-informed by her reading of The Atlantic Monthly and actual books in the Middle East and Islam, mine are informed by reading the Internet and listening to Ro summarize all the interesting things that she actually takes the time to read.

Ta: Did you watch his speech? What did you think?

Ro: I didn’t watch it, I meant to, but then I got really caught up in the book I was reading and read for two hours. Hee! His wife’s a librarian, she’d approve. Anyway, the gist seems to be more troops, work hard on Baghdad, if there were mistakes I apologize, right?

Ta: Yeah, that sums it up. The whole “IF mistakes were made the responsibility rests with me” thing was annoying (which many others have pointed out on the Internets). Because he isn’t saying they were made, just that IF you people out there THINK, foolishly, that there were mistakes, fine, blame me, whatever.

Plus, he had the speech in the library, reportedly so it would feel more like a discussion with the people. Vomit.

The thing is, okay, sending 20,000 more troops. That doesn’t actually seem like enough to get anything substantive done. If you want to stick with your send more troops plan, I think you need to send a lot more. The plan is to have enough to hold neighborhoods that have been cleared, as opposed to clearing and moving on (which was one of the two actual mistakes he actually straight-out said they made, which: DUH. I mean, I am no general, but doesn’t that seem obvious, why were they even doing that in the first place?). But we already have like 130,000 troops there, and that is apparently not enough to enact this plan, so is 20,000 more going to be? Seems a little unlikely.

Ro: Well, I agree that 20% more soldiers doesn’t seem more likely to suddenly be able to handle Iraq. But, I also think we have to try something. I wanted us to talk to the other countries, Bush seems to want to go it alone. In this, as in everything else, we disagree. I think in the long run (the 20-year run) leaving now and letting a civil war get out of control would be a huge mistake. I’m not sure staying will improve that 20-year view any, but it would assuage our guilt a little.

Man, I read the most interesting article in The Atlantic today, comparing pre-WWII Eastern Europe to today’s Middle East. Check it: huge heterogeneous empires disintegrate (Austro-Hungarian / Ottoman), form little countries along ethnic lines (Romania, Yugoslavia, Iraq, Iran). The problem is what happened next in Eastern Europe: World War II. Oops! WWII pretty neatly drew boundaries between different ethnic groups (and where it wasn’t complete, it was finished later, as in Bosnia and Yugoslavia, which had their own wars later on).

And that’s where we are in the Middle East. The problem introducing democracy is the fearful minority – and all the Middle Eastern countries have some minority in them: there are Shiites living in Saudi Arabia, Sunnis in Iran, etc. Plus, the poor Kurds are everywhere. Basically the article was saying that WWII and the related wars only ended when the minorities got their own countries. And that means the Middle East is in for some regional troubles, so to speak.

Anyway, it was very interesting and certainly better said that I just did. I don’t like the idea that peace could only really arrive by avoiding diversity, but peace would sure be nice. Would splitting Iraq up work? There’s been some talk about making the Kurds in the north independent. But are the Sunnis and Shiites not geographically separate in a convenient way? Then again, Israel/Palestine may be proof that artificial boundaries don’t work. Hmm. I’m stuck in an infinite loop.

Remember when I asked you how long until we have the United States of Earth? Where the countries are sort of like our states, all ruled by a central government, but with some autonomy? And you said, basically never? And I still think 700 years should do it?

Anyway, I wonder what you think the endgame of the Middle East is (the pre-USE endgame, I mean). I think it’ll all end up with separate countries based on type-of-Muslim, plus small countries for type-of-Non-Muslim. But man, to get there is going to be messy. Plus, I would obviously much prefer various democracies housing various types of Muslim and non-Muslim all in one happy bunch. But….

Ta: I agree that trying something is necessary, it just seems a little like a weird face-saving measure that isn’t making anyone happy and isn’t an actual effort to do anything to keep the situation from getting so much worse. Some former general dude was pointing out that it seems like maybe it’s a way to save face. We’re committing more troops and putting the onus on the Iraqis to step up, and on the prime minister to make all the various sects stop blocking our troops’ entry into certain areas. And when it all falls apart, he can say that he tried and that he tried to make Iraq step up, and THEY failed. I thought that was interesting. I think that fits into the assuaging the guilt idea, too.

I think that Atlantic article makes some really good points – I’d like to read that, actually. Regarding Iraq, no, you’re right – in addition to the Kurds being in the north, the Sunnis and Shiites are also split east-west, more or less, I think. So purely geographically speaking, that would work, if that was how it all shook out. One major problem is that most of the oil is in one part, I think the east, but I can’t recall. Whichever group didn’t get that part as their country would pitch a fit, since Iraq doesn’t have any industry and no other natural resources. That’s where all the value is.

I think artificially created boundaries can work, theoretically, better than the Palestine/Israel division, though of course, getting to the separate countries is usually awful (Yugoslavia/Bosnia/Macedonia, etc.) or once the separation has stablized, there are still undercurrents and rumblings and whatnot (Pakistan and India). But as The Atlantic and you pointed out, Eastern Europe is shaking out ok-ish, granted, only after a ton of devastating wars. With Israel, there is the added holy land/religious issue, mucking up the works. Oil could create the same problem in trying to divide Iraq.

One way to fix that of course is to not just have the groups in Iraq separate out, but to essentially re-draw the lines of all the Middle Eastern countries so each religious-ethnic group has their own safe place. But I think that won’t work unless it’s a decision made by the Middle Eastern countries themselves, since it isn’t anyone else’s place to do that and anti-Western sentiment would screw up even an attempt to suggest such a thing (as would be pretty approriate).

It’s not a bad idea in the abstract, if it would work. I also don’t like the idea that peace could only come through de-diversification. BUT. Maybe it goes something like de-diversify –> peace –> re-diversify. Like, maybe in another 50 or 100 years, in Eastern Europe we’ll see the countries start to become more diverse. It would probably start with people from non-Eastern European countries moving into the homogeneous Eastern European countries. Then maybe, if the people living in the separate Eastern European countries become more mobile, they will start moving around, too. And because the region will be peaceful, and the change in the ethnic makeup will be slow, it will happen and be ok. So maybe that makes it more ok to get peace through separation, if we think someday it will allow mixing, and then eventually allow for your United States of Earth.

I think your endgame scenario for the Middle East is definitely possible, and I honestly can’t think of anything else that would potentially be as stable as that. Because what’s the other option? A stable democracy in Iraq, which inspires the other countries to become stable democracies too? You just can’t have a stable democracy with all the different ethnic groups being so mad at each other, right? It seems like it’s total country boundary revision or no endgame at all, just fighting forever and ever. Which seems unlikely.

Ro: Hmm! One thing to consider in the Europe/Middle East comparison is that we had not invaded one of the Eastern European countries and tried to fix it. So while Yugoslavia seems to have turned out semi-okay in the end, it didn’t have a whole other civilization meddling around, trying to force democracy on it. Things might have been even worse, or maybe not. Who knows.

You know what would solve this whole thing? The Rapture.

This raises an interesting question about democracy – does it require homogeneity? Why would any one want to be part of any minority in a system based on majority rules? I know we have a few things in there to prevent a majority from being mean, but not really. If, say, the Methodists wanted to rise to power and mandate Methodism, I really don’t see anything stopping them. Obviously they’d need a lot of power, particularly the Court, but if they got it… You know? This isn’t a real problem here, but in a place where there are a small number of strongly divisive groups, I can see each group being completely panicked about that, and being kind of right. Minorities in democracies off the top of my head: African-American people in America (enslaves, disenfranchised, etc.), Japanese-Americans in America (put in camps), slaves in Ancient Rome (enslaved), Muslims in India (evicted to Pakistan). On the other hand, Quebecois in Canada. On the other other hand, Catholics vs Protestants in Northern Ireland.

Ta: And on the third hand, Muslims in France (really, really unhappy).

I had not thought of that, the broader question of what it says about democracy, but, well, yeah, good point. I supposed if you have enough smaller groups, so there isn’t one giant majority, then it is sort of ok, because even if people still vote their ethnicities, there are enough different groups that maybe ethnic groups A, C, and F all end up voting the same way one stuff. But it can take a country a long time to get to that place, and obviously most countries are fairly homogenous, and minorities are totally subject to the good old tyranny of the majority.

You can build in protections, in theory – not letting people vote on things like basic rights, having various checks and balances and branches and structures and whatnot. Of course, that doesn’t always work either.

In clichèd conclusion: Things in the Middle East are going to get worse before they get better, I suppose.

Counter-Point: They Are Meant To Be…Adorable!

1. They are so in love. They are kind of dumb, yes, but they seem like good people, and they fit kind of well together. That’s exactly who she should be with, no? Yes, he’s a drama queen, and clearly torn, as all 20 year old boys are, between a sure thing and that hot brunette across the room. And yes, she’s pretty awesome, but her life goal involves the words "teen" and "vogue." They bought each other very thoughtful Christmas presents, and seem to have fun together. Plus, to the extent they create relationship drama, they both seem to enjoy that, too.

2. If you disagree that they are totally in love and MEANT TO BE, then I still think she should shack up. She’s been yo-yo-ing to Jason and away for literally years. He’s that high school guy that you never really break up from because you don’t remember not having him around, and if you really really break up you won’t know who you are. Maybe it’s time for her to break free! But if so, I think living with him could be a great test of that. Are they just a high school couple, or are they MEANT TO BE? One way to find out is to smell his feet every day, and see just how long it takes her to get ready.

3. The internship isn’t that big a deal. First of all, Lauren is rich. I’m sure she will spend some time in Paris eventually. Second, I’m not too worried about her career advancement.

4. Jason is, admittedly, a jealous, lazy asshat. However, I don’t think you give him enough credit. He was the hot rich guy at his hot rich high school, and then MTV came and made a reality show that sort of focused a lot on how they were all hot and rich. I amazed he has any normal traits at all, that can mess a kid up. Plus, he’s young yet, he can grow out of those things. And, Lauren does a pretty good job calling him on it, which is great, and a sign that they are MEANT TO BE.

In conclusion, I love that show and I love their love, and I love how shiny and pretty it all is. Lauren + Jason 4-eva! WOO!!!!!

Point: Lauren Should Ship Out

[ETA: I forgot to ENUMERATE my points, so consumed was I by the need to get this out into the world.]

Tonight is the season finale of the incredibly addictive guilty-pleasure MTV show "The Hills."

I didn’t watch Laguna Beach, though I have heard excellent things about it. And I’ve been watching The Hills now and again, because it’s summer, and shut up it’s awesome.  On Saturday, too exhausted from a 50 mile bike ride to do much else, I watched the entire season in one sitting.

The Hills is a show that makes me talk out loud, the better to comment to Heidi that she really shouldn’t quit her job after one day, or to mock the male models during the swim suit casting call. Someone who constantly draws my vocal ire? Jordan. And thus we reach the Point. Tonight, Lauren must decide whether to move in with Jason or take a summer Teen Vogue internship in Paris.

Point: Jason just isn’t a very good boyfriend, and Lauren should go to Paris.

1. He cheated on her. Jason and Lauren apparently dated while on Laguna Beach (living in Laguna Beach?) then broke up when he kissed his ex. Strike one, right there. But when he moved to LA right after Lauren did and started sending her really nice flowers, I was willing to give him a chance. I knew Ro thought highly of their love, and he was doing a really good job, and seemed to really like her.

2. He treats her poorly, or at best, too casually.  Hhe may very well love her to bits, but he’s not good at it. One his birthday, Lauren arranged a whole huge nice dinner, and rushed to get out of work to be on time, skipping a photo shoot that seemed fairly important. Jason spent most of dinner talking to other girls and then left afterward to go out with his friends. Not only did he not spend any time with Lauren, he was pissy to her.

On her birthday, he initially seemed to do a great job: He got a limo to take her to the Standard, and had roses and a romantic dinner all laid out. He almost immediately started asking her what she wanted to do after dinner; it was clear she wanted to just hang out in the room with him, but he kept asking her if she wanted to go to so-and-so’s party, or meet up with other people after. NO, asshat, she doesn’t.

Mostly, it seems like he has no follow-through. He sets up these nice things and then kind of ruins them. She seems like a fairly calm and responsible young lady, whereas he seems a little lazy, jealous, and is not very perceptive. He picked a fight with her on New Year’s Eve because a boy she had dated for a week called her and she answered the phone.

3. Also, shave your facial hair, Jason.

In conclusion, I am sorry, Ro, I just don’t see it. Heidi and Jordan seem to have it more together, and Heidi is not a poster-girl for anything resembling togetherness. Lauren and Jason seem to fight all the time, at Jason’s instigation.

Lauren seems to be doing well at her internship, and it’s just one summer in Paris. Jason is a big pouter, so I am sure their relationship won’t make it through even three months (I hear there are boys in Paris), but she can do better anyway, so she should just go.

Counterpoint: You Are the Enabler and Your Points Reveal Your Greater Dorkiness

I didn’t believe you were the bigger dork until you wrote your Point entry. Now I do.

1) Your first point shows that you are the greater dork. You say that every time you do something dorky, I follow. This is true, as I am certainly a dork, but if you didn’t come up with all these dorky things to do I’d probably do cool things instead.

2) I concede your point about video games, and also your point about the DS Lite. HOWEVER, I imported that DS more out of impatience than dorkiness. As to video games, it is true that one time I bought Prince of Persia: The Two Thrones solely so that you would play it and I could watch, but you were the one who though to leave it at my apartment for the summer so you could play it when you were visiting. That was an awful lot of forethought, DORK.

3) Knitting books. Lots and lots of knitting books. As well as knitting blogs, paraphernalia, and oh so many knitting discussions. And you knit the very legwarmers you disparage.

4) I only relate to plots of sci-fi books to you because you want to know but don’t want to actually read the books, as they are not particularly well-written.  Lazy, book-snob DORK.

5) I think you just read a book with a dragon on the cover.

6) You tear up if you think too hard about how difficult Peter Parker’s life is.

7) You are always the first to alert me to new developments in the world of television dorkiness, most recently, the possible development of a new Stargate series.

So there.

Point: You, Ta, Are Just As Dorky As I Am

Sometimes I get the feeling that you believe I am a bigger dork than you. In this, as in all things, you are wrong. Here is my evidence:

1. Nearly every time I start doing something really dorky, you soon follow. For example, see previous conversation regarding our love of Boy Meets World. I think a Venn Diagram of our dorkiness would show yours almost entirely overlapping with mine, then also taking up the rest of the page.

2. You are often the dork vanguard. I’d say you are responsible for all videogame-related dorkiness, for example.

3. You can set up a home network, even if there are three computers. Also, you can set up my TV, DVD player, VCR, Tivo, and GameCube so they all work neatly together and I don’t have to unplug anything. You know your way around Radio Shack. You once said, "I’m so happy I got this S-cable."

4. You spend 5 hours each day peering out your curtains and making tut-tut noises at the goings on.

5. You willingly relate to me the entire plots of sci fi books.

6. Legwarmers.

7. You imported a DS Lite from Japan. FROM JAPAN.

At this point I’d like to engage in a little preemptive self-defense, since I can imagine a little of your response. But I’ll follow the rules. I demand a time for rebuttal, however.

Counterpoint

Counterpoint: I am as good at finding excellent television for you, if not better, and you never listen and then sometimes, it’s TOO LATE.

1. Stargate SG-1:  We didn’t have cable in college, so we were stuck with the regular network stations. This was fine with me, since I also didn’t have cable growing up. I knew where to find excellent syndicated television. Including the crown jewel: Stargate SG-1, which aired on FOX25 Saturday afternoons. I believe you caught me watching it a few times and made fun of me. I tried to tell you about the good writing and the excellent characters, but all you could see were wormholes and aliens. Then we moved into an apartment, with cable, and OH HOW THE TABLES TURNED! Now, Stargate was on Sci-Fi, and it’s awesomeness punched you right in the eye. Ha! Not only did I introduce to Stargate, but if not for Stargate, you might never have learned of Battlestar Galactica or Stargate: Atlantis. So there.

2. Wonderfalls: This show was on FOX for like a second, and like all excellent shows that I immediately fall in love with (Firefly, Fastlane, etc.), FOX took it away from me. You had watched an episode or two, but you were kind of meh about it. I tried to tell you. I TRIED. You gave it another shot this year when you rented it on Netflix. And you loved it. But you know what, Ro? Too fucking late. Maybe if you had given it a proper chance when it was one, FOX wouldn’t have canceled it. I blame YOU.

Uh, I can’t think of more TV right this second. However, I can think of times that you introduced me to terrible, terrible TV that I was then forced to watch seasons of because I needed, despite the terrible, to find out what happened. Like the times you made me watch 7th Heaven. It started out as a joke, because it was on before Angel, and we would watch it to make fun of it. But then we kept watching it long after it stopped being funny to do so. We called it the punishment, and we said that it made Angel seem that much better. I hate you.

And Charmed. Oh Charmed. You got me all sucked in to this crapfest, a parade of boring bad acting mixed with Rose McGowan’s over the top bad acting and Alyssa Milano’s boobs. And now I have to watch it til it’s over, because I like Piper and I need to find out what happens. Hate.

Now I’m kind of angry at you. Good work.

Hey, who introduced who to Dude, Where’s My Car? Or was that a mutual introduction because of that time we had HBO Zoom! for free and it was on all the time?

I will admit, that time we watched Boy Meets World every day for months was great.

Point

Point: I am really good at spotting excellent television that seems like it will suck, and which you make fun of, but which turns out awesome and then you love.  Examples:

1. Battlestar Galactica. You scoffed at me, actually scoffed, when I said I was planning to watch a miniseries remake of a terrible old sci-fi show. SCOFFED! Then, derisive laughter! Oh, how wrong you were. You walked in on the last 30 minutes of that miniseries, huffed impatiently, then actually looked at the screen. Just think of how many hours of critically-acclaimed, complicated, dark, gripping television you would have missed if not for my genius. You’re welcome.

2. Avatar: The Last Airbender. Again with the scoffing. I told you about this cartoon I watched with my brother, how it was quasi-Japanese, with element-based superpowers. I admit, that does not sound good. Except it is really, really good. And hilarious. And sometimes angsty. It might be the best kids cartoon ever. And you know it. Now.

3. Gilmore Girls. I just remembered this. We didn’t watch that first season, but then the summer after junior year of college I read the recaps, then caught the show in repeats. Since we were roommates, that meant you watched it to, and now it’s one of your favorite shows. Admittedly, I didn’t have to overcome any scoffing about this one, though. A minor victory.

4. Boy Meets World. Hee! I go through phases where I watch one show obsessively. Past phases include Baywatch: Hawaii, Two Guys and a Girl, NYPD Blue, Law & Order: SVU, Law & Order, Third Watch, and Boy Meets World. If it’s repeated ninety times a day, I will watch that show all ninety times. The phases usually last about three months, which is how long it usually takes for me to see all the episodes, and afterwards I can never explain what I liked about that show. Except you and I both know that Boy Meets World is awesome, because I made you watch Disney channel repeats of it for about 3 months in 2004.

5. Miami Ink. You haven’t started watching it yet, but I can tell you want to. Just give in. You know I’m right.