No one was arrested during Tuesday’s demonstration, Elliot said. But there was a minor skirmish between police and protesters when some tried to gain access to a parking tunnel next to the hotel. After a small group was allowed to deliver “citizen’s arrest warrants” to America’s Health Insurance Plans, the lobbying group hosting the conference, the crowd began to disperse.

Thanks guys, I feel that much closer to change.

Here is what does bother me. Today at 12:30 pm EST, give or take, about 50 people walked towards the Ritz Carlton to issue a citizen’s arrest for the CEOs of some of the largest health care providers in the United States at a meeting of AHIP, the heath provider lobby. They were duly arrested for symbolic civil disobedience by the fine men and women of the DC Metropolitan Police Department.

This act of disobedience, in which the heads of several labor organizations, including the AFL-CIO, as well as “survivors” of the health care industry, including a man who went blind because he could not afford his health insurance, walked up with a piece of paper and some signs to waiting police to be put into waiting cars, accomplished nothing. Some news organizations were present, but none of the big networks. No congressmen were in attendance. There is little if any evidence that the AHIP meeting was even disrupted. What I saw was a symbolic act of defiance made by people who wanted to show, symbolically, that they were in solidarity with the 46 million un- and underinsured Americans in this country.

News flash: the time for symbolism has passed. Not so breaking news: these rallies are a waste of time.

Now, to qualify my position, I am not against health care reform, health care for all, single payer reform, the government’s socialist violation of your right to be less healthy, or whatever you want to call it. I want to be clear: I agree with the ostensible goals of this demonstration. But it was completely useless for two reasons.

The first is our skewed understanding of civil disobedience, which seems to have died in this country around the time they killed Martin. Thoreau notes:

“Unjust laws exist; shall we be content to obey them, or shall we endeavor to amend them, and obey them until we have succeeded, or shall we transgress them at once? Men generally… think that they ought to wait until they have persuaded the majority to alter them. They think that, if they should resist, the remedy would be worse than the evil. But it is the fault of the government itself that the remedy is worse than the evil.”

The logical conclusion to be drawn, here, is that men must not follow unjust laws in the hope that they are changed, but defy them until they are defeated. This logic has been extended to hold that a conscientious group of protesters might disrupt the organs of government and other interests who act immorally. Buy that or not, I believe that “extension” was the what this rally aimed to achieve. But here’s the rub: if you aim to disrupt government and interest to make your points loud, clear, and public, WHY ARE YOU GETTING A PERMIT TO PROTEST AND PUBLISHING THE ROUTE OF YOUR DEMONSTRATION? That would be CIVIL OBEDIENCE and the direct result of it is: the police are waiting for you to arrest the appointed (and advertised!) demonstrators and that people in traffic know to avoid your rally so that you don’t disrupt their day.

Excuse me if I am getting pedantic here (I don’t think I am), but to my mind, the idea of civil disobedience is to intrude and disrupt, to force the otherwise blissfully ignorant mass to take note that some massive injustice is taking place in their country, and that they need to face it. Further, civil disobedience, if successful, should aim to obstruct the specific organs of policy (lobbyists, bureaucracies, and representatives) to which the act is opposed.

As far as I can tell, the organizers of today’s protest acted in the exact opposite to these goals, thus constituting an act of civil obedience, which is a waste of time. Why bother carrying your soapbox to a spot where no one can hear you talk?

Secondly, and more disturbingly, is that this farce ended in people being arrested. At first glance, this is actually the point of civil disobedience and I salute those (braver than myself) who would submit themselves to the punishment of an unjust system for righteous beliefs. However, these were not the arrests of those Quixotically opposed to the great corporate powers of health, but a ritual submission of actors in mediocre political theater.

Their arrests are symbolic–they had cops, lawyers, and probably even judges ready to have everyone processed and ready to be home by evening. This symbolism is meant to convey that unions, as a political group, are, to paraphrase a speaker, in solidarity with the “working” men and women of this country to create a more powerful “middle class.” Whatever confusion their language breeds over what group they support, the idea is that they should be clapped on the back for getting pinched.

Ok, I think that does take a certain caliber of bravery, I don’t want to slight it. But let’s not get confused–symbolism is a stand in for the real thing, and only that. We live in a culture that confuses symbols for the genuine. Let’s call it a post-modern dementia. Symbols are important. As Geertz notes, “man is an animal suspended in webs of significance he himself has spun” and symbols, whether religious, cultural, or political, are the codes by which we recognize and understand the common heritage in which we are born into. But at the end of the day, a symbol remains a stand in, not the action. We wear donkeys and elephants not because we literally identify with them but because they identify the ideology which we promote through voting. But wearing the jackass is not the same as voting Democrat. Symbolic risks and symbolic acts and symbolic struggles are not the same as risk and action and struggle towards winning the fight.

When Rich Trumka got arrested today, he wanted everyone to know he is on the same side as those who don’t have health insurance in the United States. I salute him for his political position–but what the hell is he doing to alleviate the situation? The time has passed to take sides, the time has come to move beyond symbols and to move towards acts. Raise money. Donate to candidates that support government sponsored insurance. Vote for these candidates. Sue “big insurance” on behalf of dispossessed and recisioned so that they can get the benefits they were contractually promised. This is action. The rest is at best ineffectual and at worst the grossest kind deception–the kind where the weak are made to feel comfortable because someone has experienced modest discomfort in a show of solidarity with their great pain. That is poor comfort indeed.

So to close out this already too long post, I leave you with a quote from Dostoyevski, who had already diagnosed our problems today when he wrote Notes from Underground in 1864:

“We are oppressed at being men–men with a real individual body and blood, we are ashamed of it, we think it a disgrace and try to contrive to be some sort of impossible generalised man. We are stillborn, and for generations past have been begotten, not by living fathers, and that suits us better and better. We are developing a taste for it. Soon we shall contrive to be born somehow from an idea.”

First, in terms of originality, Jersey based superstars at Hero Kids give a great synopsis on how Cameron came up with this piece of crap. I highly encourage you to enjoy that piece of genius review blogging.

Secondly, TMQ at ESPN, hands down the best DC area based sports writer today, spends a good digression talking about some of my biggest issues, namely there was nothing that could be called a “plot” and that US soldiers are murderous morons. Now ten times a day you can color me and my political views as subversively left and I’d be more than proud to take that label. That being said, Cameron portrays the US military in very unpatriotic ways, and Hollywood eats it up. Wonder why Democrats always seem weak on defense? It’s because they have that same knee jerk grin and agree that Hollywood megastars have when these kinds of depictions come up. It’s nearly as bad as when they talk about saving poor animals. Nice thought but they are intellectually incapable of understanding the argument that they are pushing. But this is getting ahead of myself.

Ahem, let’s begin again:

Avatar sucks.

Yes, I know it has some pretty effects. If that’s all you look for in movies, just stop going to them and buy video games instead. Hands down its the video game industry that really pioneers special effects, and they do it for about 10 million in production costs. Avatar probably cribbed most of its advanced effects from video games. Most people thought it was a video game. So if you are ok with crappy plots, dangerous political, social, and moral suggestions, and lots and lots of the good old ultra violence, just get an XBOX and let Cameron produce his crap there. If you like movies, please take a second and be outraged here.

Avatar is basically the latest iteration of a troubling liberal imperialist mind set that keeps us involved in stupid wars like Afghanistan. In a nut shell, it goes like this: “we must help the defenseless natives save themselves from ourselves.” If that makes no sense to you, then Obama’s Afghan policy should be similarly troubling.

Let’s get on with the plot summary first here: crippled marine takes over for his twin brother in a super secret project to peaceably remove indigenous blue aliens from valuable commodity. He is then struck by the injustice of the grand plan he is supporting, defects to the other side and in the end gives up his humanness to throw his lot in with hippy blue giants to help save the enviro-nature god of Pandora.

Immediately, there are a few problems here. Number one is the idea that the Pandorans cannot fight or advocate for themselves. For whatever reason, even though they have a traditional hierarchy, the intelligence to learn English, and familiar understanding of terrain, and perhaps commercial interests in negotiating with whatever company, government, or quasi-collaboration this evil entity that wants to mine Pandora is, they are cannot mount a defense. Instead, the conceit of this movie is that a crippled marine and some scientists gone native are the keys to the Na’vi’s survival–to the point that the greatest warrior among the Na’vi defers military leadership of his people to a wheel chair bound human who controls an “avatar” from a science trailer in an undisclosed location.

Yes, this stretches believability. What’s worse is this is the same kind of thinking behind George Bush’s democracy evangelism–the Iraqis don’t know how to overthrow a dictatorship and run a democracy, so let’s show them. Of course Cameron would never endorse this thinking, so he strips Bush’s actions of their moral justification and substitutes a mineral called “unobtanium” in their stead (Iraq is an “oil” war, any one?) while imagining that the enlightened humans would then go over to the Na’vi and help defend them against such a cynical attack on their culture and homeland.

Let’s dial this back for a minute. We’re clearly supposed to find Sully sympathetic, and be outraged for the Na’vi that humans would dare take their resources and upset the balance of Pandora’s ecology. By extension, I guess this means that if the Taleban joined Green Peace, we should fight for their control of Afghanistan? Because it seems to me that the Na’vi have a whole host of practices that most people in the US wouldn’t buy into–arranged marriage, hereditary leadership, and biotelepathic interfacing with dragons to name a few. Yet this, in a way, is not the worst part. I’m a Wilsonian–if the Na’vi want to live in a big tree house, or the Afghan tribes want to live in their traditional way, as far as I’m concerned they’re entitled to it without our interference. That doesn’t mean going native like Jake Sully or John Walker Lindh.

Of course Cameron and crew don’t trouble themselves with this kind of moral implication, because they probably never even considered it. Nope, instead they figured that an out of the box cliched nature loving tribe of blue giants are naturally too goody-goody to draw comparisons to the Taleban. That’s ignorant but not callous. What’s callous is the idea that Jake Sully and friends would (must, even!) turn upon their former friend, colleagues, and comrades to defend the Na’vi’s way of life. Not one person shows any remorse at killing humans. Excuse me, but weren’t these people you’re friends? Are you really choosing a bunch of blue giants you hardly know over the race you’ve known your entire life? Without any regret? I guess those helicopter pilots are not parents, siblings, spouses, or children to any one, just more toy soldiers to blow away in some cheap liberal wet dream. Color me speciest (or whatever) but if it were me, I’d throw my lot in with humanity, you know, the race that I owe my existence to.

But the “plot” aside, what’s really troubling about all that is the implication that humans are some how too crippled or evil to be a part of, and rather what we should aspire to is some kind of noble savage that doesn’t even exist. Make no mistake, humans have a long history of doing shitty things to each other and the planet, but we’re all we got. What this movie says is that only our complete extermination or expulsion can let the planet survive. I don’t buy that. As a people, we’ve been self critical enough to deal with some of the worst atrocities committed by the US (slavery, our genocide against the Native Americans, imperialism, racism, sexism, the oppression of workers, etc.). We’ve got a long way to go, but at least we have the capacity to be self-critical. In less than a decade, the populace of this country has come to see Iraq and Afghanistan as imperial misadventures. Unfortunately, Avatar does not seem to find that valuable.

Finally, despite the fact that 1) future humans are an evil Xe-Haliburton hybrid with an insatiable and heavy handed desire for a mineral they can’t have and 2) they must be destroyed, the only man who can do this is Jake Sully. This is the same effete white man guilt that Conrad had. Read Things Fall Apart–it’s not a great book, but at least Okonkwo can think, fight, and defend (or fail to defend) his way of life without the help of some well educated progressive to hold his hand. The only difference between the concept of a noble savage and a brutal savage is an element of self-hating superiority. The pretension of imperial all-power and all-knowledge runs through both, and that kind of paternalism is worse for native peoples of all stripes, because it robs them of self agency through deception. So as nice as this liberal white man’s burden sounds, the Mau Mau and Viet Cong did quite well for themselves without it, and movie goers can do so as well.

Post script: I’ve ranted enough, but this movie is also guilty of sexism. The folks over at Over Thinking It do a better write up on the difference between a strong character and a “strong” female character than I could hope to, so I will give a bite size analysis. Neytiri is an accomplished hunter, mystic, and heir apparent to ruling the tribe. She finds out that Jake Sully has used her to bring about the destruction of her home, expulsion of her clan, death of her father, and threat to her very way of life. Understandably, she is upset. Jake Sully tames a big dragon. By this very act of manliness (for what is more testosterone charged and virile than breaking the baddest animal to your will?) he not only earns her forgiveness but an APOLOGY for acting like a crazy woman when he ruined everything. What? As soon as Jake is accepted as a warrior in the Na’vi, Neytiri gets a strong dose of stupid disease and does nothing of note until the end of the movie when she kills Colonel Quaritch, which really shouldn’t count because she was a damsel in distress that had to be rescued by both an alien bobcat and Jake Sully before she could free herself enough to kill him. I don’t know what’s worse, the sexist implication that a woman can’t think for or defend herself, or the semi-racist/imperialist point of view that noble savages can’t save themselves from us, but this character gets the worst of both.

Updated for a variety of spelling, syntax, and content errors.

So the Colts march onwards to somewhat less confident victory. How about Peyton Manning? He sure look annoyed on the sideline during the end of the game. Maybe he was thinking to himself that the Colts had struggled on offense to only get a two score lead for most of the game. Perhaps Peyton is rightly worried that while the Ravens have a good defense, the Jets have a great one. And while the Ravens have a sorry offense with no receivers (other than their running back, Ray Rice) the Jets at least have receivers who drop a lot of balls but can still make great catches (Braylon Edwards). And they’ve beaten Indy once this year (though it doesn’t really count). My money would still be on the Colts to win, but it will be tough for Peyton and crew, and I think there’s a lot of space for an upset.

On the NFC side of things, Saints–Vikings looks to be a shootout, and who doesn’t love those? Well, considering that pretty much every close game in the playoffs has been a shootout (Greenbay–Cards) or a ridiculous blowout (Cowboys–Eagles, Saints–Cards, Vikings–Cowboys, Ravens–Pats, and Colts–Ravens), I for one am getting tired. I do not favor the Jets, but I do appreciate the ability to grind out a victory against a better opponent (Jets–Chargers) or to stay on top in a close game (Jets–Bengals… kind of). It seems to me that in spite of the pedigree (Manning, Farve, Brees) and prowess (3 of the top 4 records in the 2009 season, top three rated QBs post season, most total defense, blah blah blah), the Jets have the most compelling story of the post-season. The perennial under-performing underdog hires fat coach who can’t stop talking about how great he and his team are. Their QB looks like he was recruited from a Hollywood teen movie, and despite having the leagues best defense (thanks to Revis) they have really only had a mediocre season and squeaked into the playoffs as a wild card. Now, they really look like they could go all the way. Darrelle Revis has shut down pretty much every wide receiver worth talking about. That Colts rush game? They were averaging 1.7 yards a carry against the Ravens, with only 3 first downs, and nothing in the end zone. The Jets finished with a worse rush defense than the Ravens, but when you’re talking 5 versus 8, I don’t think that means Joseph Addai is going to have an easier day of it.

So my predictions? Jets over Colts, Vikings over Saints. The heavenly Superbowl will only happen in whatifs.

Also, I would like to reiterate a few points from my last football post–blowouts suck and the rematches (except for Greenbay–Cards) sucked. So by losing entertaining games, I won in analysis. I feel cheated by myself.

From around late night

Ever thought that going to another network and then finally winning the ratings battle would dull the bitter wounds of Letterman? Me neither.

And finally, the pièce de résistance–Jimmy Kimmel takes it to Leno’s face:

Before I jump in here, a few points that need to be laid out.  One, I don’t consider Somalia to be a country any more, hence my previous snark.  The “government” we support is a bunch of men who exerted little control when they were backed by Ethiopian tanks and now have even less.  Their relevancy to the actual population consistently hovers at 0.  So while it’s helpful to refer to Somalia for the geographic connotations, for me the idea of Somalia has eroded from 1991 to the ineffectual dreams of Western and African policy makers to end the chaos with as little change to the status quo as possible.  I’m not sure in this case that the status quo is anything bad, but it certainly doesn’t seem to spend much time in reality.

Secondly, I tend to err on the side that two state solutions and other kinds of partitions are rarely successful.  India and Pakistan and Israel and Palestine are two cases that spring immediately to mind.  Peaceful partitions that did little more than generate a bunch of wars.  I tend to blame the United Kingdom for this.  If you look at some land conflicts in Latin America, Venezuela-Guyana, Nicaragua-Colombia, Guatemala-Belize, and Argentina-UK (Falklands)–you can see that when the British split up territory, they never quite ended the conflict before leaving.  The counter argument, of course, is that colonial borders that brought together diverse and even enemy populations cannot succeed as sovereign entities, much of Africa, Iraq, and Afghanistan all appear to strengthen that case.  Even a relatively successful democracy like Kenya can’t seem to get over ethnic tensions, so maybe splitting them up does work.

Which brings us to Somalia.  Somalia doesn’t really exist, but Puntland has a representative democracy, functioning (but poor) government, and at least some capacity to defend and police its country.  In many respects, it fits not only the definition of a nation state, but that of a democracy, which is quite astounding in a region that isn’t necessarily known by its democratic credentials.  Moreover, I think there is a strong case here that if we support something viable, which Puntland seems to be, we have a better chance of influencing the destiny of the Horn of Africa than we would if we, say, supported an ineffectual sham government who has only held on to Mogadishu for two years, and tenuously at that.

So practical wisdom says back the horse in Puntland, it’s a sure winner, right?

Unfortunately, one of the nagging parts of international law is that it’s all precedent based.  The short hand is that if a majority of the countries consider something to be normal practice, then it is international law.  The only “written” law is contained in UN conventions and bi- and multi-lateral treaties.  There is, of course, a bunch of ways to avoid being accountable to international law, such as refusing to sign conventions, refusing to join international groups, and to make vociferously clear in both written statement and and spoken pronouncement your reservations, understandings, and declarations about how you intend to (not) follow international law.  But in general, your best bet is that if you don’t like the implications for your sovereignty, you don’t support something.

This is what makes the Puntland case a little frustrating.  In northeastern Somalia there is a region that has everything we want and maybe more from an African ally, but if we support it, the implications are not something we’ll like.  Consider that we fought a civil war based on the principle that the South had no legal right to secede from the Union.  In more contemporary terms, an internationally recognized Puntland has some troubling implications for Morocco, India, Turkey, the Sudan, and a host of other nations.  After all, the compelling arguments for Puntland’s recognition could easily be extended to a place like Kurdistan, which would be most inconvenient for Turkey, the US, and any ambitions for a federal Iraq.

Which leaves us, the international community, in quite a bind.  On the one hand, there are many practical but situational specific solutions that would make stabilizing developing countries much easier than it is today.  Giving Puntland money to fight Somali piracy makes our warships in the Gulf of Aden much more likely to be successful. On the other hand, sometimes process is more than just a ritual to make us feel like we’ve had a say.  Process breeds order, and to upset order threatens more than formality.  The very underpinnings of how the world functions today, how countries interact, how trade happens, and why there are relatively few wars of aggression between nations, are all related to a respect of process and thus, order.

So Puntland cannot be it’s own nation, though in the de facto sense, we really have nothing to counter that reality.  In the grand scheme of things, perhaps this is small potatoes.  However, it does beg a question of the current world order–how useful is international decorum and process when it is opposed to practical realities?  Is a genocide in Sudan something we’re willing to allow because we can’t get consensus in the Security Council?  And conversely, are we as a nation really able to act morally and sensibly outside of international consensus?

I lifted this picture for graphic evidence of the phenomenon.  It is also hosted over at CSM.