|
Comment on this article |
View comments |
Email this Article
|
|
AN ANARCHIST BUDDHIST EXISTENTIALIST WHIG RESPONDS |
Current rating: 0 |
by Paul Kotheimer
Email: herringb (nospam) prairienet.org (unverified!) |
27 Nov 2004
|
|
An open letter to Leo Buchignani, Editor in Chief of the Orange and Blue Observer, in response to his most recent "Letter from the Editor." |
AN ANARCHIST BUDDHIST EXISTENTIALIST WHIG RESPONDS
by Paul Kotheimer
(URBANA, Illinois) I was on the campus of the U of I the other day, whiling away my break time with nothing else to read, so I took a look at The Orange and Blue Observer, a small newsprint monthly which bills itself as “The University of Illinois’ Conservative Journal of Events and Opinions.” The lead article caught my curiosity. In it, Editor in Chief Leo Buchignani wrote:
“The Observer has been attracting a lot of controversy on campus, which is a good thing. it’s now time to explain who we are and what we stand for.
“The Observer will print articles, news and opinions from the following viewpoints: Anarchist, Buddhist, Christian, Existentialist, Fiscal Conservative, Libertarian, Hindu, Monarchist, Muslim, NeoConservative, Nihilist, PaleoConservative, Pessimist, Religious Conservative, Social Conservative, and Whig.
“The Oberserver will not print articles from: Liberals, Socialists, Marxists, Multiculturalists, Stalinists and Greens. We figure they already have the DI.”
I for one appreciate any invitation to write, so I am firing off this response:
To Leo Buchignani, Editor in Chief of The Orange and Blue Observer <orangeandblueobserver (at) gmail.com>:
Regarding your “Letter from the editor:” (published p. 2, Vol. XIV, Number 2):
AN ANARCHIST BUDDHIST EXISTENTIALIST WHIG RESPONDS
I was pleasantly surprised to read in your publication that “The Observer will print articles, news, and opinions” from such a wide range of worldviews, especially because I am, in fact, an Anarchist, a Buddhist, an Existentialist, and a Whig. I have been of the first three of these persuasions since college, at least--and, just by coincidence, I have recently also become a Whig.
As an anarchist, I value autonomy. As a Buddhist, I value non-violence. As an Existentialist, I question all values. As a Whig, I value American History as a lesson in Good Government.
From these perspectives, then, I would like to submit the following views on American politics, as that seems to be one focus of your publication:
ON THE WARS IN AFGHANISTAN AND IRAQ
As an anarchist, I hate war. First of all, war makes people follow orders. Secondly, those orders say “Kill people.” Why would anybody want either of those things?
As a Buddhist, I oppose war by enacting peace--embodying peace, even--in whatever context I can.
As an existentialist, I’d advise you to just try living in a war zone as an anonymous civilian. Then, try calling that experience “Operation Enduring Freedom.”
As a Whig, I’d like to remind you that Saddam Hussein was on the payroll of the U. S. government under Reagan and Bush, Senior. So was the Taliban. So was Osama bin Laden.
ON THE REPUBLICAN PARTY
As an anarchist, I’m really not crazy about the idea of a political party as a way to organize people at all, but the Republicans are about as bad as it gets before it’s not even a Republic anymore. Some would say, at this point, that the Republican Party is actually already the current Dictatorship of a World Empire.
As a Buddhist, I urge you to think about the poorest people in the world. Can the Republican Party claim that it treats those people with any scrap of dignity or humanity?
Existentially speaking, I offer Guantanamo, or Abu Ghraib, or Fallujah, as a telling portrait of the Republican policy endgame in microcosm.
As a Whig, may I remind you that we were the Republican Party before the Republican Party was the Republican Party, and we don’t like the way the 21st century is turning out.
ON GEORGE W. BUSH, IN PARTICULAR
Though it’s frequently impossible to get three Anarchists to agree about anything, Anarchists worldwide have demonstrated in the streets against George W. Bush. Is it because he’s a repeat-offender election thief and war criminal, or is it because he talks like he has brain damage and poses a danger to humans everywhere? It’s difficult to tell.
Buddhists too have opposed GW with a similarly uncharacteristic unanimity. It could have something to do with his obsession with oil and coup d’etat, or it could be his wanton disregard of living beings generally. Again, it’s a tough one to call.
In a recently conducted poll among existentialists, George W. Bush doesn’t even exist, except as a kind of Orwellian puppet show.
And Whigs, as you may know, agree on everything, and all of us, even Millard Fillmore, think that George W. Bush looks like a monkey.
______________________
I don’t know if I should be surprised if you publish this submission or not. I hope you will remain true to your commitment to publish work from my perspectives. If you do, please include the following byline:
Paul Kotheimer is a member of AFSCME 698 and a frequent contributor to the Urbana-Champaign Independent Media Center. |
This work licensed under a
Creative Commons license |
Comments
|
Re: AN ANARCHIST BUDDHIST EXISTENTIALIST WHIG RESPONDS |
by Lainey
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
02 Dec 2004
|
|
I am not as smart as Lee, but I thought I might give this a shot seeing I stumbled across the site. Paul you have some problems with your argument. You said that we shouldn't be at war and you value humanity. That contradicts itself considering that we are at war to stop acts of terrorism. We were attacked, our people were killed, and you expect us to sit back and negotiate with a mad man. You may argue stopping terrorism isn't our place, but if you truely believe in humanity then don't you think we should do the whole world a favor (plus save countless lives) and get the job done already? You dont have to agree with me. I don't usually agree with Anarchist, Buddist, Existentialist Whigs, I'm just putting it out there. |
|
Re: AN ANARCHIST BUDDHIST EXISTENTIALIST WHIG RESPONDS |
by paul's ABEW friend
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
04 Dec 2004
|
Hey Lainey,
Welcome to the site. Most IMCstas and reasonable people see no contradiction in valuing humanity and denouncing war; that position is morally consistent. It's the so-called "war on terrorism" that operates on contradiction, given that war IS terrorism. Moreover, such a war ignores one of the most basic and common sense principles of life: that violence begets more violence. This fact is being borne out in Iraq, which has become an enormous and efficient terrorist-creation zone. There is no way to "kill all the terrorists" because each murder of a suspected "insurgent" simply creates more of them. Even Bush himself admitted that the war on terror is unwinnable, and then was forced to retract his statement (oops, accidentally told the truth for once, sorry...).
It's been well proven by now that Saddam was not a threat, either to US or anyone in the region, and that he had no connection with 9-11. Those points are beyond dispute. It's good that he's gone, but are the people of Iraq better off now? That is disputable, as is the question: is the world at large a safer place because of the "war on terror"? I'd say absolutely not, and Tom ridge would probably agree with me.
There may be no way to stop terrorism completely. But there is definitely a way to diminish it, and war is definitely not the answer. The way is to address the root causes of terrorism, such as the grievances stated very clearly by Bin laden himself. Better yet, given that acts of terrorism are acts of extreme desperation and powerlessness, we need to address the problems of gross social and economic inequality that give rise to such feelings.
Unfortunately, there will probably always be the ideologically-driven fundamentalists in the world, like Zarqawi and Bush. They belong in prison, at least until they learn how to play well with others. |
|
Responding to Lainey |
by Paul Kotheimer
herringb (nospam) prairienet.org (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
07 Dec 2004
|
Lainey says that I say we shouldn't be at war and that I value humanity.
I _do_ say that, but I didn't say it in the article I posted.
Also, just by the way, I don't know who Lainey means when Lainey says "we." Who does Lainey think "we" is when he says that "we are at war" and that "we were attacked"?
Also, Lainey mentions an "argument" made in my posting. I had no intention of making an argument. My viewpoints correspond with several labels listed by a local publication (namely: Anarchist, Buddhist, Existentialist, and Whig). Since they do correspond, I considered myself invited to state them so that they would be published.
I did so. |
|
