liadanslyre

a-i
#c-d
:)

c. i thought about posting how i seemed to of hit a emotional threshold and can't handle discussing current events w/ people that may disagree w/ me.

d. i thought about posting about why that might be.

c.
so i wrote a post about the sudan,
and i called some important people bad names.
it wasn't purty- let's just put it that way.

i don't like myself when i get that way. i don't want to be a know it all- and i don't want to be perceived as one. the internet is an odd bird for me. as one of my astute, enormously intelligent and whitty friends pointed out- it can be an easy medium to be a smart ass and raise a bunch of guff in a fairly unproductive way.

this is not a commentary on the importance of what is happening in the sudan. it is important. it is important to talk/ write about. it is important to have more dialogue.

for me, the bottom line is that at some core place; while i find people at that are opinonless about politics, foriegn affairs and the like a bit dull (which is not the case for my blog peeps)- what is even more of a challenge is to engage in a constructive way people that think differently than me (which happens on occassion w/ my blog peeps). sorry if that was a run on sentence.


d.
the reason why a threshold was crossed for me? well- many factors. but the easiest and most clear explanation is that i have begun to identify more closely with the problems in sudan, and africa and more broadly.

this is coupled with how the argument of the u.s. government's action/inaction can be rationalized with, 'what's happening in darfur is a complex situation'- just does not compute for me and sends me over the edge. the factors that contribute to genocide may be complex.

history's account of the genocide around the world over the last century alone- do not factor in the finer points of complexity and bullshit. history accounts the bottom line. numbers of innocent people killed or displaced b/c of the color of their skin, religion etc- who were the perpatrators and players, who intervened, and who watched it happen.

today's chewable vitamin:

"no u.s. president has ever made genocide prevention a priority,
and no u.s. president has ever suffered politically for his indifference to its occurrence.
it is thus no coincidence that genocide rages on...

despite graphic media coverage, american policymakers, journalists, and citizens are extremely slow to muster the imagination needed to reckon with evil. ahead of the killings, they assume rational actors will not inflict seemingly gratuitous violence. they trust in good- faith negotiations and traditional diplomacy. once the killings start, they assume that civilians who keep their heads down will be lift alone. they urge cease-fires and donate humanitarian aid. "
~ samantha powers
(courtesy megan who is reading
a problem from hell: america and the age of genocide.
i get first dibs to borrow it after she's done. so back off.)