The Horrors of Subsistence Farming in Afghanistan

Apparently, after having their country destroyed by war, the people of Afghanistan have resourcefully decided to produce the only thing they can to make money and reconstruct their lives. The only problem is that these poverty-stricken farmers had the gall to grow something in their own country that we in our decadent wealth do not ideologically approve of. Despite the fact that this crop is the only thing feeding children and working to improve the horrible conditions in the nation, we will not tolerate it. Behold the destructive evil of this plant:

British officials point out that the Afghan economy is booming, that three million refugees have returned home and that four million children are in schools. But yesterday's report reveals that the engine of economic growth is opium production. Last year Afghanistan exported 87 per cent of the world's supplies. Opium is now the 'main engine of economic growth and the strongest bond among previously quarrelsome peoples.'

Damn you opium! How dare you bring people together peacefully and help to improve the lives of poor farmers and their families. After all, if your children are to live to be adults, you might have to indirectly provide some junkie waste of life in England (who would have gotten some heroin no matter what) with a slightly cheaper fix.

As stated eloquently by another blogger:

Yeah, yeah, yeah. I know that the trade is also fueling many problems for Afghanistan. Narco-trade is helping to foster widespread corruption, political instability, gang violence, and possibly some hefty smuggling profits for Taleban militants in western Pakistan. So the answer is… to escalate a violent conflict to keep Afghanistan’s only cash crop traded completely on the black market?

The genius of this tactic is so striking it seems almost absolutely ridiculous.

So, the bottom line is that since our government has made it such a high priority to stop spoiled, hedonistic, addict morons in our countries from doing what they will most likely do anyways, it becomes necessary to destroy the lives of Afghan farmers by destroying their only means of subsistence and thereby choking the life out of their recovering economy and starving their families.

Oh but let's justify this atrocity by stating that Afghanistan is on its way to becoming a "corrupt narco-state", since every country that produces something we don't like is automatically "corrupt". Also, it would probably serve the interests of the Afghan people and the world if we could spend millions and millions of dollars trying to destroy opium crops, fail miserably and only decrease production by at most 10%, and in the process force the entire trade onto the black market, creating corruption, extensive criminal networks and warring opium cartels. Then we can starve children, induce the rise of warring factions, and undermine the legitimacy of the Afghan government by breeding corruption. Keep in mind, this is all worth it. Now those damn junkies will have to pay $1 or $2 more every time they get high.

It is always good to see that our government is willing to destroy the lives of poor, honest, hard working foreigners in order to (fail to) protect morons in our country from destroying their own lives. Here's a good, catchy line for Bush & Blair's awesome new policy: KILL THE FARMERS, SAVE THE JUNKIES (from themselves).

This entry is based on the article found here. (READ IT!)

Do you ever stop and wonder how it is that half of a nation can believe one thing, while the other half believes something totally opposite? Do you ever wonder how our nation became a battleground between two perceived truths?

This is the nature of our decadent, indulgent society. Subconsciously or otherwise, for the American there is no truth except that which feels best, that which sounds most appealing. We are too busy being consumers, too busy posing in our fast cars or our fashionable clothes; we don't have time to think or reason. We will not concern ourselves with our lives or with our freedoms. Truth to the American is like a candy bar at a grocery store; it is impulsive and pleasurable, it is bright and shiny and tempting. We are under no pressure to accept anything that is painful or uncomfortable, so of course we do not.

Democracy is most fundamentally based on the idea that in any given situation, the majority opinion of a population will arrive at the truest and best (or at least the most utilitarian) of a number of options. This, however, assumes an adequate supply of information in the population with which to form opinions, as well as a willingness to reasonably process information and form rational opinions. Are we as modern people capable of using our reason to sift through the over-abundance of information in 21st century life?

We are drowning in information, yet this information is a commoditized information; it must be sold through its appeal. Thus the 'truths' that sell best are those that are the most pleasurable, the most comforting. Most pundits and commentators like to point the finger at their opponents, calling them stupid, idealistic, dishonest, etc. They cannot grasp why that which is so self-evident to them is rejected by another person. This, most probably, is because neither the Democrats nor the Republicans actually form their opinions logically. They form them based on what they have been taught, and what seems most right to them. The problem is that what seems true is rarely true. Our hedonism will not allow us to accept truth that is not pleasurable or comforting. Thus all political debate becomes meaningless as logic is removed. Emily Katz writes:

Because truth has been relegated to merely an aesthetic preference, rather than an objective standard we can reach through honest inquiry and dialogue, we libertarians are fighting even more of an uphill battle than we may realize. You can’t argue with aesthetics.

We live in a time where everyone is entitled to their own point of view, however unsubstantiated it might be. And in such an era, it is not enough to make sound economic and philosophical arguments if people refuse to be receptive to them. Our problem is more foundational: we must make our culture one that values inquiry and intellect in the first place. Once that’s taken care of, the ideas will speak for themselves.

The question is if we as Americans are willing to sacrifice our "aesthetic preferences" and comfortable ideologies in order to find a higher, objective truth. In a country split 51%-48%, a great number of people must be very wrong, and isn't it a little too easy to just assume it's the other guy? We need to stop looking to "truth" as a source of comfort -- the truth is hard to accept more often than not -- and we need to take the time to use our minds and re-assess our views.

If we don't take time to care for our society, it will most likely continue its path to decadence, while in the meantime the politicians and multinational corporations and all those that recognize the importance and power of reasoned, planned political activism will achieve their goals at our expense. We owe it to ourselves, to those we propose to bind with our laws, and to democracy itself to be as critical of our own beliefs as we are of others', and to work towards a real, objective truth, rather than empty, indulgent aesthetic opinion.

Americans have become the quintessential spectators, and this our nation has become the unholy stage of our exploitative self-referential entertainment. The inversion and subversion of reality and the annihilation of decency are complete. From the sitcom portraying reality, to reality TV which seeks to capture reality, to the exploitation of reality itself and our joy in the suffering of others, our ravenous desire for entertainment has evolved into something truly predatory.

Our unhealthy obsession with the trial of one man, Scott Peterson, has nothing to do with the reality of his crime, nor does the truth of his innocence or guilt have any real relevance to the clamoring masses except in its capacity to entertain. This trial, like the JonBenet Ramsey case before it, reflects the total inversion of entertainment as we know it. The pre-packaged, fictional, sitcom representation of reality is gone; here you will find no actors and no sets.

We dehumanize and trivialize the reality of the situation as we watch voyeuristically. Our interest in these cases lies not in the horror of the crime itself, but rather in the unreality that we create by our denial and spectatorship. We do not care about the real people in our nation who kill and are killed; we are entertained only insofar as those involved actually resemble actors. We fictionalize these horrors in our minds, so that we may live through them and be entertained by them, free of the moral implications of reality. The closer these people seem to actors, the easier it is to deny their reality, and the easier it is to gain gratification from their suffering. Through the cult of celebrity, we cling to the exploits of the rich and famous; through these gross violations of decency perpetrated in the courts and in the media, we delight in the misery of the beautiful and successful.

There are more than 12,600 murders in our nation every year, yet we ignore all that which does not offer us a pleasurable spectacle. So long as the suffering of others does not serve our sordid, selfish interests, we conveniently ignore it. We are the roaring and bloodthirsty mass audience, the dirty and soulless spectators of modernity. Are our lives so devoid of excitement and meaning that we must indulge in the pain of others at the expense of decency? Thousands of years of technological and social advance have brought us back to the Coliseum. We passively indulge in the horrors of death, denying the humanity of those we obsess over.

Shame on the media. Shame on the spectators and voyeurs who cheapen life with their greedy, selfish obsessions.

Last night I somewhat hastily posted my sentiments on our voting system, concerning the mathematical absurdity of any positive expectation from voting, as well as the basically flawed nature of our voting system. (More here) In the face of such undeniable evidence, I decided that voting would be foolish, and would only serve to legitimize this monstrosity of a government that is encroaching on our lives and liberties.
While I stand by this assertion, in the time since I published that blog entry, I received an impassioned plea of encouragement to vote from someone whose opinions I hold in high regard. What struck me most among the words of this person was the continued urge not to become apathetic and not to give up. I would like to clarify that even in my condemnation of voting as a sort of straw man without real influential power, it never crossed my mind that doing nothing was the answer. To to contrary, it seemed to me that much more radical and proactive means were necessary to affect change in this our government. Let my readers be comforted that after all this, I thumbed my nose at reason and statistical meaningfulness, took the plunge, and voted. Just so that I can never be accused of passivity or apathy, I will do every last thing necessary to wrestle power from these freedom-destroying imbiciles in office. Although I without question believe that voting is the weakest form of political expression, I owe this nation my "straw in hopes of breaking the camel's back", so to speak.
Although I have voted in a representative system, I would like to clarify that I am a Free Equitist, not a Democrat or Republican or Libertarian. I believe representative government to be degrading to our liberty and self-determination. By selecting a representative who I would prefer to "represent" me, I mean I wish him to do my will as a public servant. I do not wish him to do his will; he should have no will but that of the people. That any federal representative is actually capable of acting as a public servant, I seriously doubt. But, having voted, let us not say that we have done what we can, for voting is barely the start of what we can do.