skip navigation
The Read Menace - Commentary by Tom Bartel

Poetry and war

Submitted by Oliver Tuanis on Monday, May 23, 2005

A friend of mine told me over the weekend that she missed my poetry posts. (If you are nostalgic, you can go back to any posts from April for the pedantry.) But that comment, and today's news from Iraq made me think of one of my favorites: Horace's Ode 3.2--the famous "Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori," ode--"It is sweet and fitting to die for your country."

Now I'm certain that Horace was being ironic. In fact, I wrote a pretty good paper about it once in college. But, of course, that hasn't stopped the guys who start the wars quoting him out of context for the last 2000 years. We have, luckily, the other poets and artists to interpret for us.

Here's Hemingway's take, for example: "They wrote in the old days that it is sweet and fitting to die for one's country. But in modern war, there is nothing sweet nor fitting in your dying. You will die like a dog for no good reason."

And here is English poet Wilfred Owen:

Dulce Et Decorum Est

Bent double, like old beggars under sacks
Knock-kneed, coughing like hags, we cursed through sludge,
Till on the haunting flares we turned our backs
And towards our distant rest began to trudge.
Men marched asleep. Many had lost their boots
But limped on, blood-shod. All went lame; all blind;
Drunk with fatigue; deaf even to the hoots
Of tired, outstripped Five-Nines that dropped behind.

Gas! GAS! Quick, boys! --- An ecstasy of fumbling,
Fitting the clumsy helmets just in time;

Continued advertisement
But someone still was yelling out and stumbling
And floundering like a man in fire or lime ---
Dim, through the misty panes and thick green light,
As under a green sea, I saw him drowning.

In all my dreams, before my helpless sight,
He plunges at me, guttering, choking, drowning.

If in some smothering dreams you too could pace
Behind the wagon that we flung him in,
And watch the white eyes writhing in his face,
His hanging face, like a devil's sick of sin;
If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood
Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs,
Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud
Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues,---
My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
To children ardent for some desperate glory,
The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est
Pro patria mori.

Read that last line again--the part about the "old Lie," and think of how we got into Iraq. Think of that in the light of the stories out of England recently in which it was revealed in Parliamentary memos that the American government knew damn well they were lying about Saddam's weapons.

Add that to the lies Rumsfeld baldly told to the questioning American soldier about why they were sent to Iraq with unarmored Humvees and inadequate body armor.

Think then of Horace and Hemingway and Owen's imagery.

Five Americans were killed over the weekend, four of them by road side bombs that blew apart their bodies, which were shielded by little more than the leather armor worn by Roman soldiers in Horace's time.

Think of the pink froth of those boys' last breaths gurgling from their perforated chests and screaming lips.

And then think if you would send a dog to die like that.

Rumsfeld would.

Asses of Evil

Submitted by Oliver Tuanis on Friday, May 20, 2005

There's another article in today's Miami Herald about Luis Posada Carriles. (Search their archives for a long list of more stories on this jerk.) Here's the basic deal: Posada blew up a Cuban airliner that was on its way to Venezuela. He blew up some hotels in Havana. He tortured leftist prisoners in Venezuela.

Even putting aside the torture thing, which is wholeheartedly endorsed by the Bush administration, the airplane and hotel bombings kind of make him a terrorist, don't they? Of course, there is the annoying mitigating circumstance that Posada was working for (gasp) the CIA at the time of the airplane bombing, but U.S. law clearly prohibits offering asylum to terrorists.

But, there's also the law of South Florida, particularly Miami, which is, for all practical purposes, the Batista government of Cuba in exile. So, if Jeb-boy is gonna carry Florida in 2008, brother W probably ain't gonna send a Cuban "freedom fighter" to Castro's buddies in Venezuela to be tried.

Gee, even Libya turned over the Lockerbie bombers. (Of course, in Gaddifi's defense, he didn't have to worry about elections.) But, if Libya was once a charter member of the Axis of Evil club, what does that make us?

advertisement

Crapping on the Koran, part 2

Submitted by Oliver Tuanis on Thursday, May 19, 2005

Will wonders never cease? The conservative columnist of the NY Times, David Brooks, came to the defense of Newsweek today.

Brooks takes note of the fact that radical Islamists hardly need a short item in an American magazine with an excellent reputation to incite them to senseless violence against almost everyone.

He doesn't actually put it in so many words, but, he suggests we ask Muslim clerics, "Where is the Koran, if not in the toilet, when you are encouraging children to blow themselves up to kill fellow Muslims in Afganistan?"

Now I've never incited Muslims to violence by, for example, calling for a "crusade" or invading their country, unlike a certain President I know. And I've never pissed off Hindus by calling them devil worshipers, like a certain Christian leader.

But, I have written some fairly inflammatory things about right wing Christians in this space, and so far no one has walked in here ringed with C4. Of course, I'm not an "activist" judge either. Maybe the Christian bombers are saving themselves for when it really counts.

advertisement

Freedom of Information

Submitted by Oliver Tuanis on Wednesday, May 18, 2005

maonixon.jpg
Can you give me some advice on how to deal with Woodward and Bernstein?


I had the opportunity to have lunch with an editor of the Beijing English language daily newspaper China Daily on Sunday. He was in town as part of an exchange program for Asian journalists to see how we do it over here.

In preparation for our meeting, he'd read the May issue of the Rake, and noticed an ad for the Friends of the Minneapolis Library which featured a little blurb about Mao Ze Dong, and compared him in unflattering terms to American librarians, who are guardians of our free access to information. I asked him what he thought of that, and he just smiled.

In journalistic, if not terribly polite fashion, I pursued the theme a bit. "Does the government closely monitor what you publish in your newspaper?" I asked. "Yes," he replied.

"Is there someone in the government who assures what you write conforms with the story the government wants to tell?" I continued. Again, "Yes."

"Who does that for your newspaper?"

"I do."

"Oh...How do you like your sandwich?"

I thought back on this in the context of the blowup over the Newsweek flap over the report on whether some copies of the Koran were finding their way into Guantanamo toilets. The Bush version of the Maoist Censorship Society has certainly had its jollies being righteously indignant about the story that a Pentagon report contained the information about the crapped-on Korans. (Note please that the story has been reported before on several occasions and that the Pentagon was shown the story and didn't deny it before it ran. It's also worth mention that the reporter, Michael Isikoff, was a lot more popular with Republicans when he broke the Monica Lewinsky story.)

Continued advertisement

But those troublesome facts have nothing to do with what's going on here. What this flap is about is a concerted effort to discredit the press at every opportunity--with the hoped-for result of limiting the press's desire to do the sort of investigative reporting that revealed the official sanction and practice of torture by Bush and his decorated Myrmidons.

Mao didn't have a troublesome First Amendment to deal with, so his methods of information control didn't have to suffer any intermediate hurdles to get his message across. But given the obstacles Bushies face, don't you agree they are doing a great job of making sure America gets the news they want?

The natural balance of power

Submitted by Oliver Tuanis on Tuesday, May 17, 2005

In the book Freakonomics that I mentioned the other day, there's a chapter called "Where Have All the Criminals Gone?". In it, author Steven Levitt examines various theories of why violent crime has decreased in the country. Many explanations are examined: more prisons, more police, better policing strategies, aging population, stronger economy, and gun laws.

Since our legislature seems again determined to re-pass the idiotic conceal carry law, let's talk about that. Oddly, Levitt has in his book an example that exactly fits the circumstances of the murder last week at Nye's restaurant in Northeast Minneapolis.

On page 131, here's what Levitt says, "A gun scrambles the outcome of any dispute. Let's say that a tough guy and a not-so-tough guy exchange words in a bar, which leads to a fight. It's pretty obvious to the not-so-tough guy that he'll be beaten, so why bother fighting? The pecking order remains intact. But if the not-so-tough guy happens to have a gun, he stands a good chance of winning. In this scenario, the introduction of a gun may well lead to more violence."

Continued advertisement

This is exactly what happened at Nye's. The little jerk who was bounced from the bar had the legal right to carry a gun, thanks to the 2003 mandatory permit issue law. (The gun-bill-totin' State Senator Pat Pariseau's take was this, though: "I don't think it proves problems with the law. I think it proves that someone got [a permit] who shouldn't have gotten one." Could Pat Pariseau be any stupider? I'll give a free peronalized "We ban guns here" poster to the reader with the best answer to that one.)

Levitt goes on to discuss the alternate scenario of a girl out for a nighttime stroll who is accosted by a mugger. Three possible scenarios, actually.

One: the girl is not armed and the mugger is. The most likely--and there will be a bad outcome for the girl. She'll be robbed, (or worse.)

Two: the girl is armed and the mugger is not. Highly unlikely that a mugger who is robbing people won't be armed, but, if the mugger is a complete idiot, the outcome is better for the girl.

Three: they are both armed, but, it's reasonable to believe the mugger has his gun drawn, while they girl does not. Still a bad outcome for the girl. Perhaps even a worse one if she goes for her gun and the mugger shoots her instead of just taking her purse.

Levitt goes on to discuss other facets of gun laws, but comes to the conclusion that there are so many guns in the United States that neither the Brady Laws nor concealed carry will affect crime in a macro sense.

So what is the cause of the drop in violent crime? I guarantee you, the right ain't gonna like the answer. It's fewer babies born to people who don't want them. Looks like it took just about 20 years after Roe v. Wade for the effects to make themselves apparent.

Discuss.

Subscribe to the The Read Menace Blog RSS Feed