a quote from an article he recently published (i think in 'Public Interest'):
Finally, the ability of terrorists to strike the American homeland has been blown out of all proportion. In the nine years since 9/11, government officials and terrorist experts have issued countless warnings that another major attack on American soil is probable—even imminent. But this is simply not the case. The only attempts we have seen are a few failed solo attacks by individuals with links to al-Qaeda like the “shoe bomber,” who attempted to blow up an American Airlines flight from Paris to Miami in December 2001, and the “underwear bomber,” who tried to blow up a Northwest Airlines flight from Amsterdam to Detroit in December 2009. So, we do have a terrorism problem, but it is hardly an existential threat. In fact, it is a minor threat. Perhaps the scope of the challenge is best captured by Ohio State political scientist John Mueller’s telling comment that “the number of Americans killed by international terrorism since the late 1960s . . . is about the same as the number killed over the same period by lightning, or by accident-causing deer, or by severe allergic reactions to peanuts.”
Monday, December 27, 2010
Friday, December 17, 2010
small government death spiral
first principle: government, any government, is bad. the founding fathers were men of god, but (somehow) the government they created is evil. always. the country itself is stronger with small government. it became a superpower during and after WW2 because it had a weak government.
step two: continually deride anything the government does (exception: anything the government does to foreigners is wonderful).
step three: elect people to government office who claim to hate government. they will strip it of revenues, and do everything possible to demoralize it (except the military, and the spies, and their corporate friends, who get all the 'big government money' they ever want).
step four: sit and wait. the government will work less and less well. continue to preach government's essential iniquity. more people believe your pessimistic message. you are a genius, a prophet.
step five: elect politicians with increasingly virulent hatred of government. they will do all they can to ruin it, all the while proclaiming their heartfelt patriotism. everyone awaits the small-government utopia that will magically arise once no one is regulating the banks, food safety, labor practices, etc etc.
step five: look forward to social instability, poverty, violence, corruption, class resentments, environmental degradation, plutocracy, and other things typical of countries (haiti, kenya, nigeria) enjoying the benefits of small government. hey wait a minute! aren't we seeing some of those phenomena already? we must be even closer to the promised land.
congratulations! you have successfully proven yourself right.
[until people begin to wonder if maybe their nightmarish society and bad government are really a product of bad policies and dishonest, cynical politics -- and if maybe the prophets of small government were really in that gig for the money]
step two: continually deride anything the government does (exception: anything the government does to foreigners is wonderful).
step three: elect people to government office who claim to hate government. they will strip it of revenues, and do everything possible to demoralize it (except the military, and the spies, and their corporate friends, who get all the 'big government money' they ever want).
step four: sit and wait. the government will work less and less well. continue to preach government's essential iniquity. more people believe your pessimistic message. you are a genius, a prophet.
step five: elect politicians with increasingly virulent hatred of government. they will do all they can to ruin it, all the while proclaiming their heartfelt patriotism. everyone awaits the small-government utopia that will magically arise once no one is regulating the banks, food safety, labor practices, etc etc.
step five: look forward to social instability, poverty, violence, corruption, class resentments, environmental degradation, plutocracy, and other things typical of countries (haiti, kenya, nigeria) enjoying the benefits of small government. hey wait a minute! aren't we seeing some of those phenomena already? we must be even closer to the promised land.
congratulations! you have successfully proven yourself right.
[until people begin to wonder if maybe their nightmarish society and bad government are really a product of bad policies and dishonest, cynical politics -- and if maybe the prophets of small government were really in that gig for the money]
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
quite a name!
one of my wife's chinese language students goes by the name 'Thora'! i looked at it, puzzled. what kind of name is that? 'Thor' came to mind, and i mentioned to her Thor was the Norse god of thunder.
guess what? her Chinese name, or nickname, is 'Lei Lei,' or 'thunder thunder'!
i busted out laughing. apparently the little girl is super cute. and named thora!
just an example of Chinese people's craziness -- or creativity -- in choosing names.
i remember my students Dove and Dolphin. they were a couple. Dove was the man.
guess what? her Chinese name, or nickname, is 'Lei Lei,' or 'thunder thunder'!
i busted out laughing. apparently the little girl is super cute. and named thora!
just an example of Chinese people's craziness -- or creativity -- in choosing names.
i remember my students Dove and Dolphin. they were a couple. Dove was the man.
a new way for palestine?
from an article posted by the Jerusalem Fund:
There is a way out for Abbas - and the Palestinian people - of the trap of endless negotiations as the ground is pulled out from under their feet: To work for an end to the occupation before going into negotiations. What would this involve? The Palestinians would state that they are committed to living in peace and security with Israel, but will not negotiate until it withdraws its soldiers and settlers from the occupied territories, finally applying the principle that underpins United Nations Security Council resolution 242 of 1967 - "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war."
Thereafter, Palestinians and Israelis would negotiate final status issues, including a just resolution for Palestinian refugees, security and water. International peacekeepers would be placed between the two sides, including around Gaza, to maintain security for both sides until a final status agreement is signed.
This approach is gaining strength with Palestinian analysts. Amman-based analyst Mouin Rabbani recently wrote for the congressional newspaper The Hill that Palestinians should "agree to negotiate only the mechanisms of a permanent end to the Israeli occupation" before turning to final status issues. Ramallah-based businessman Sam Bahour, who blogs at e-palestine, says that trying to solve final-status issues "while the boot of occupation is still on our necks is hallucination at best and a crime at worst."
There is a way out for Abbas - and the Palestinian people - of the trap of endless negotiations as the ground is pulled out from under their feet: To work for an end to the occupation before going into negotiations. What would this involve? The Palestinians would state that they are committed to living in peace and security with Israel, but will not negotiate until it withdraws its soldiers and settlers from the occupied territories, finally applying the principle that underpins United Nations Security Council resolution 242 of 1967 - "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war."
Thereafter, Palestinians and Israelis would negotiate final status issues, including a just resolution for Palestinian refugees, security and water. International peacekeepers would be placed between the two sides, including around Gaza, to maintain security for both sides until a final status agreement is signed.
This approach is gaining strength with Palestinian analysts. Amman-based analyst Mouin Rabbani recently wrote for the congressional newspaper The Hill that Palestinians should "agree to negotiate only the mechanisms of a permanent end to the Israeli occupation" before turning to final status issues. Ramallah-based businessman Sam Bahour, who blogs at e-palestine, says that trying to solve final-status issues "while the boot of occupation is still on our necks is hallucination at best and a crime at worst."
Friday, November 26, 2010
rising intonations: time-saver? or gender-bending?
since when did people begin using a rising intonation when talking casually, telling stories?
'so, i was at the store? and there was this crazy-looking dude over by the egg nog? and he was freaking me out, cuz one of his eyes was glowing green? . . "
i've found myself doing it occasionally. is it a replacement of the so-called 'tag question'? 'so i was in the store, right?/ya know?' if so, it seems to be a more efficient method to get the same intonation. spoken language is like water, always ready to flow toward easier, more effortless channels.
or is it an invasion by previously 'women's speech' (of some region or age group?) into general talk? if so, it is a significant breach of former gender boundaries. women, as the inferior caste, are allowed to freely borrow men's symbols of speech or dress -- but the opposite, men borrowing women's things, is highly charged with stigma. i associate it with an uncertainty common to young women. maybe that is why i still avoid it.
it is usually used in story-telling. in that context, i think it has another function: a place holder as i finish a sentence. it seems to say, 'ok, i'm not done yet, hold on, i'm telling a story.' i would love to know where
'so, i was at the store? and there was this crazy-looking dude over by the egg nog? and he was freaking me out, cuz one of his eyes was glowing green? . . "
i've found myself doing it occasionally. is it a replacement of the so-called 'tag question'? 'so i was in the store, right?/ya know?' if so, it seems to be a more efficient method to get the same intonation. spoken language is like water, always ready to flow toward easier, more effortless channels.
or is it an invasion by previously 'women's speech' (of some region or age group?) into general talk? if so, it is a significant breach of former gender boundaries. women, as the inferior caste, are allowed to freely borrow men's symbols of speech or dress -- but the opposite, men borrowing women's things, is highly charged with stigma. i associate it with an uncertainty common to young women. maybe that is why i still avoid it.
it is usually used in story-telling. in that context, i think it has another function: a place holder as i finish a sentence. it seems to say, 'ok, i'm not done yet, hold on, i'm telling a story.' i would love to know where
american monarchy in our midst
taken from "what to do about guantanamo?" by david cole in the new york review of books, october 14, 2010.
'even the physical design of the guantanamo courtroom is shaped by the desire to conceal our own abuses. a soundproof glass wall separates the onlookers from the trial participants, so that the only way an observer can hear what is going on is thru headphones with a 40 second delay. the reason, according to denny leboeuf, an ACLU lawyer advising on the defense of several detainees, is "the Rule: detainees are forbidden from speaking about their torture." remarkably, the US government has declared 'classified' anything that the detainees say about their torture, and has required the lawyers, as a condition of access to their clients, to keep secret all details of their clients' treatment at the hands of their interrogators. but of course, the US cannot compel the detainees themselves not to speak of the unspeakable. the only way it can keep them from telling their stories is by keeping them detained, behind bars, behind glass, silenced.'
one cannot claim to revere the founding fathers and at the same time support what has been done at guantanamo. above all else those men advocated the rule of law, a law which transcended the power of kings and princes to exercise arbitrary power. what bush accomplished in establishing guantanamo was to wield power much like the monarchs our founding fathers supposedly banished from american shores: the men interred there were to be there not based on objective evidence and legal rulings, but on the say-so of the executive branch. from the word of the king, in other words.
600 former prisoners there have been released -- without charge, without apology. what does that fact say about the judgment of our presidents-in-chief, our presumptive monarchs? supposedly, everyone put there was already judged guilty of crimes. if that is so, why were they then released? it can only be that there was no evidence against them. but there will be no apology or compensation to the innocent because that would open up the collective amnesia our power structure has decided is necessary to, in the cliche, 'move forward.' but anyone who has read history knows, there is no such thing as wiping away the past thru willful effort. it always returns.
i say, why not stick to our hundreds-year-old legal system? isn't the law smarter and fairer than bush, obama, and their lackeys? isn't the law better than any particular government? why aren't those who revere the founding fathers on the Right making these same arguments? why the silence? could it be that the founding fathers are revered merely as religious symbols, shorn of the actual legal concepts they laid down? mere decorative knick-knacks to make us feel better about our own complicity in the crimes of power?
i don't understand the contradiction of hating excessive government power ('big government') and avidly supporting the monarchical tendencies of the executive branch (guantanamo). this is an intellectual schizophrenia from which we must awaken. the sooner the better. old secrets resurface with the most pain.
so far, i have not seen encouraging signs even from so-called libertarians newly-elected. their libertarianism, apparently, is decorative in nature.
'even the physical design of the guantanamo courtroom is shaped by the desire to conceal our own abuses. a soundproof glass wall separates the onlookers from the trial participants, so that the only way an observer can hear what is going on is thru headphones with a 40 second delay. the reason, according to denny leboeuf, an ACLU lawyer advising on the defense of several detainees, is "the Rule: detainees are forbidden from speaking about their torture." remarkably, the US government has declared 'classified' anything that the detainees say about their torture, and has required the lawyers, as a condition of access to their clients, to keep secret all details of their clients' treatment at the hands of their interrogators. but of course, the US cannot compel the detainees themselves not to speak of the unspeakable. the only way it can keep them from telling their stories is by keeping them detained, behind bars, behind glass, silenced.'
one cannot claim to revere the founding fathers and at the same time support what has been done at guantanamo. above all else those men advocated the rule of law, a law which transcended the power of kings and princes to exercise arbitrary power. what bush accomplished in establishing guantanamo was to wield power much like the monarchs our founding fathers supposedly banished from american shores: the men interred there were to be there not based on objective evidence and legal rulings, but on the say-so of the executive branch. from the word of the king, in other words.
600 former prisoners there have been released -- without charge, without apology. what does that fact say about the judgment of our presidents-in-chief, our presumptive monarchs? supposedly, everyone put there was already judged guilty of crimes. if that is so, why were they then released? it can only be that there was no evidence against them. but there will be no apology or compensation to the innocent because that would open up the collective amnesia our power structure has decided is necessary to, in the cliche, 'move forward.' but anyone who has read history knows, there is no such thing as wiping away the past thru willful effort. it always returns.
i say, why not stick to our hundreds-year-old legal system? isn't the law smarter and fairer than bush, obama, and their lackeys? isn't the law better than any particular government? why aren't those who revere the founding fathers on the Right making these same arguments? why the silence? could it be that the founding fathers are revered merely as religious symbols, shorn of the actual legal concepts they laid down? mere decorative knick-knacks to make us feel better about our own complicity in the crimes of power?
i don't understand the contradiction of hating excessive government power ('big government') and avidly supporting the monarchical tendencies of the executive branch (guantanamo). this is an intellectual schizophrenia from which we must awaken. the sooner the better. old secrets resurface with the most pain.
so far, i have not seen encouraging signs even from so-called libertarians newly-elected. their libertarianism, apparently, is decorative in nature.
Monday, November 22, 2010
stealing other people's land -- with US help
This is a portion of an article posted on The Jerusalem Fund's website. Read it and judge for yourself whether the US can both assist this type of theft and make peace in Palestine/Israel. By the way, we should stop calling that fictitious 'process' a 'peace process.' What is needed is an 'independence process,' since Palestinian occupation is the issue here. Can you think of any other place in the world where independence of a colonized land was discussed as a 'peace process'? Did the US achieve independence by setting up a 'peace process' with one of England's good friends? Peace will come only when Israel gets off the land it stole in 1967, and makes a good-faith effort to deal with the theft committed in 1948. The phrase 'peace process' euphemizes the power imbalance between the two sides, making it seem as if the problem is just a general 'violence' between two equal groups. Wake up, America: Israel -- with our help -- is the bully, the thief, the occupier. For fair-minded people like Americans, such an immoral position (standing against the underdog) can only be maintained through large doses of deception and self-deception.
Ethnically Cleaning Silwan
Silwan is an Arab village adjacent to Jerusalem's Old City, extending along the Kidron Valley alongside the eastern slopes of Jabal al-Mukaber, another Arab community. Home to about 45,000 people, it's one of 28 Palestinian villages incorporated into East Jerusalem. For years, settler encroachment fueled controversy and conflict. So does the area's historical importance, archeology used for displacement to legitimize Jewish claims.
Excavations have already claimed large tracts of Silwan land. The militant right-wing settler group Elad, funded largely by US donors, controls them. Its web site tells its own version of history. It also conducts tours to convince visitors of its Jewish origin.
For their part, Palestinians are contesting, explaining their important history. Different versions fuel conflict, Haaretz writers Nir Hasson and Jonathan Lis, on October 12 headlining, "Life in Silwan: Unbearable for Jews and Palestinians alike," saying:
"The pattern of Jewish settlement (there) is unlike anywhere else, with some 70 Jewish families (around 500 people) in 15 locations, islands among tens of thousands of Palestinians. The resulting friction requires the presence of dozens of security guards and surveillance cameras."
Palestinians complain about their presence and heavy-handed police tactics. The Association of Civil Rights in Israel said settlers carry weapons, Jewish/Arab relations thus tense over shootings, deaths and arrests. Moreover, Palestinian homes are being demolished for planned parks, open spaces, restaurants, boutique hotels, and Jewish-only housing.
Al-Bustan is a Silwan neighborhood, across from the Jerusalem's Old City. Home to about 1,500 residents, they're threatened with displacement, the Municipality of Jerusalem claiming no permits were issued to build in areas designated for open space and a archeological park.
On February 22, 2009, they were ordered out in 72 hours to make way for expanding Israel's City of David archeological site, a Jewish heritage project involving removing Palestinians whose history goes back centuries. Residents contested their right to stay, the Al Bustan Popular Committee (BPC) working with lawyers in Israeli courts. Nonetheless, demolition orders are issued and in other city neighborhoods, part of Israel's systematic Judaization process.
Ethnically Cleaning Silwan
Silwan is an Arab village adjacent to Jerusalem's Old City, extending along the Kidron Valley alongside the eastern slopes of Jabal al-Mukaber, another Arab community. Home to about 45,000 people, it's one of 28 Palestinian villages incorporated into East Jerusalem. For years, settler encroachment fueled controversy and conflict. So does the area's historical importance, archeology used for displacement to legitimize Jewish claims.
Excavations have already claimed large tracts of Silwan land. The militant right-wing settler group Elad, funded largely by US donors, controls them. Its web site tells its own version of history. It also conducts tours to convince visitors of its Jewish origin.
For their part, Palestinians are contesting, explaining their important history. Different versions fuel conflict, Haaretz writers Nir Hasson and Jonathan Lis, on October 12 headlining, "Life in Silwan: Unbearable for Jews and Palestinians alike," saying:
"The pattern of Jewish settlement (there) is unlike anywhere else, with some 70 Jewish families (around 500 people) in 15 locations, islands among tens of thousands of Palestinians. The resulting friction requires the presence of dozens of security guards and surveillance cameras."
Palestinians complain about their presence and heavy-handed police tactics. The Association of Civil Rights in Israel said settlers carry weapons, Jewish/Arab relations thus tense over shootings, deaths and arrests. Moreover, Palestinian homes are being demolished for planned parks, open spaces, restaurants, boutique hotels, and Jewish-only housing.
Al-Bustan is a Silwan neighborhood, across from the Jerusalem's Old City. Home to about 1,500 residents, they're threatened with displacement, the Municipality of Jerusalem claiming no permits were issued to build in areas designated for open space and a archeological park.
On February 22, 2009, they were ordered out in 72 hours to make way for expanding Israel's City of David archeological site, a Jewish heritage project involving removing Palestinians whose history goes back centuries. Residents contested their right to stay, the Al Bustan Popular Committee (BPC) working with lawyers in Israeli courts. Nonetheless, demolition orders are issued and in other city neighborhoods, part of Israel's systematic Judaization process.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
