This really happened
– every bit of it.
I saw signs, sure, outraged cries
that I would not help
you walk. Real anguish. Screams meant
to get me to my feet and
hands under your arms
to march through the house. I drew
the line. You wouldn’t eat, either. The sight
of the food twisted
your head aside -- my ‘yum yum
yum’ trick flopped. I hypothesized –
and brought you up to bed. Oh you wailed,
squirmed -- out of my arms,
but -- brought down again you
quietened, quiescent --
– eyes on the
sky branches fluttering their last
leaves livid and then your fingers
dug absently at my face like play-doh,
picking at my buttons,
toying my teeth that nibbled a
finger or two (it was back
to the shimmering window once or
twice though before your eyes closed
and feet kicked and
hand pressed still against my neck
resisting it and me
even after sleep had fallen
-- or, not really accepting an end).
11.5.2010
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
Friday, January 14, 2011
having it both ways
Sarah Palin claims that criminal acts must 'stand on their own.' and yet she also claims that America's greatness is due to something shared, something collective among all the people. she cannot logically assert that bad american things belong to individuals but good american things belong to, and come from, everybody.
a cursory look at the events of last saturday show that, while loughner as a deranged individual was ultimately and most fully responsible, his acts were certainly enabled and shaped by the society in which they took place. for one obvious example, the community college's self-protecting action of expelling Loughner but thinking nothing of his possible danger to the wider society is typical of a not-so-great feature of modern american life. the college properly worried about the safety of its own people. but it went no further: as long as my butt is covered, no problem!
another example is the prevalent gun culture in places like arizona. gun evangelists who insist that everyone embrace guns as they do believe that there are two gun cultures -- a good one and a bad one. like Palin with american culture, they would like to pretend that gun culture only includes the good, while the bad is just random bad people doing their own thing. the fact that loughner lived in arizona meant his gun obsession was totally acceptable and even legal. it raised no eyebrows. his madness was fully camouflaged within the mainstream arizona gun culture. it is not likely his obsession would have gotten so far in a place with stricter gun laws and less fascination with guns. so, no, arizona's gun culture did not cause the killings to happen. but the gun culture made it much easier to happen.
Palin and other figures on the Right claim that they are accused of full and direct responsibility for the violence. a 'blood libel,' if you will. that claim is false. what critics assert is something more nuanced, a nuance that Palin is willfully incapable of understanding: that crimes come ultimately from individuals but are nonetheless deeply influenced by society. no one is accusing Palin of killing those people in Tucson.
but all the bad things about modern American culture -- the cover-my-own-rear mentality, the belief that (good) individual violence can stamp out 'bad' violence, the notion that certain ethnic groups are responsible for all social evils, the selfish focus on me and only me (which used to be linked to the hippie left, but now seems more typical of much of the right), the dismantling of social safety nets such as health care, including mental health care (technically there was a system in place, but the fact that the community college didn't know about it doesn't say much for it's effectiveness), the irrational hatred of government (as if we could have a country without a government) -- played a part in loughner's life and actions. and even Palin -- especially Palin -- who pretends to be such a worshiper of America -- has plenty of critical anger regarding America. i just think her anger makes no sense logically.
she is angry chiefly at class discrimination. she is looked down on by elites -- such as me, i presume. but, incoherently, her answer to this situation is not to deal head on and courageously with the economic and political causes (unfettered capitalism with no government regulation) that brought about our high levels of inequality. no, her answer is to menace elites -- presumably, only left-leaning elites, not conservative elites -- with patriotism. and to continue those free market policies which gave the elites such power. go figure.
Palin cannot have her cake and eat it, too. she cannot deliberately invoke gun violence in her political speech and expect people to accept that she is at the same time pure as the driven snow. her repeated use of the word 'reload,' for example, is a clear flirtation with violence. my criticism here is not the oft-repeated call for 'civility.' what does that even mean? holding the door for old ladies? i don't think civility is very important in politics. politics is a tough business. but flirtation with violent, clearly eliminationalist rhetoric -- any metaphors which refer to killing political opponents -- has no place in democratic politics.
Palin's defenders make absurd parodies of the criticism levelled against her, 'wondering' aloud if they can even say things like 'up in arms' anymore. these tactics are too cute by half. plenty of political language derives from physical acts (lash out) or military language (outflank, defeat, trench warfare). but most of these terms have been in long use in politics and are no longer used for their original meaning. we rarely use 'up in arms' anymore to mean people have picked up guns to fight. it is used almost exclusively to refer to widespread anger and condemnation.
'reload' is not one of those widely used metaphorical terms. it is used specifically to refer to putting more ammunition in one's gun. this is precisely why Palin used it so often and so insistently. she liked flirting with the angry crowd, giving them a little of what they wanted. that is certainly her right. but she cannot have it both ways, flirting with violence and avoiding criticism for it. time for her to man up. she said it. she owns it. she used the word for its explicit linkage to violence. and now she denies it, like a dancer who shows her leg and then angrily denies that she was using sex to titillate her audience.
the titillation of violence. it excites extremists on the Right. unfortunately, this titillation with violent speech has percolated upwards, and been appropriated by some leaders on the Right.
and yes, the violent language she and other leaders on the Right have used since Obama came into office did play a part -- however small, however diffuse -- in the political culture within which Loughner decided to act. crazy people are aware, even hyper aware, of the culture around them. to think they are just trapped in their heads without any awareness of what is going on around them is disingenuous and is, as usual with many of the Right's arguments, little linked to reality and how it happens. we are all in society. we are all in our predicament together. we share the good and we share the bad. one can't pretend that we share all good things but bad things are totally and absolutely individual.
a cursory look at the events of last saturday show that, while loughner as a deranged individual was ultimately and most fully responsible, his acts were certainly enabled and shaped by the society in which they took place. for one obvious example, the community college's self-protecting action of expelling Loughner but thinking nothing of his possible danger to the wider society is typical of a not-so-great feature of modern american life. the college properly worried about the safety of its own people. but it went no further: as long as my butt is covered, no problem!
another example is the prevalent gun culture in places like arizona. gun evangelists who insist that everyone embrace guns as they do believe that there are two gun cultures -- a good one and a bad one. like Palin with american culture, they would like to pretend that gun culture only includes the good, while the bad is just random bad people doing their own thing. the fact that loughner lived in arizona meant his gun obsession was totally acceptable and even legal. it raised no eyebrows. his madness was fully camouflaged within the mainstream arizona gun culture. it is not likely his obsession would have gotten so far in a place with stricter gun laws and less fascination with guns. so, no, arizona's gun culture did not cause the killings to happen. but the gun culture made it much easier to happen.
Palin and other figures on the Right claim that they are accused of full and direct responsibility for the violence. a 'blood libel,' if you will. that claim is false. what critics assert is something more nuanced, a nuance that Palin is willfully incapable of understanding: that crimes come ultimately from individuals but are nonetheless deeply influenced by society. no one is accusing Palin of killing those people in Tucson.
but all the bad things about modern American culture -- the cover-my-own-rear mentality, the belief that (good) individual violence can stamp out 'bad' violence, the notion that certain ethnic groups are responsible for all social evils, the selfish focus on me and only me (which used to be linked to the hippie left, but now seems more typical of much of the right), the dismantling of social safety nets such as health care, including mental health care (technically there was a system in place, but the fact that the community college didn't know about it doesn't say much for it's effectiveness), the irrational hatred of government (as if we could have a country without a government) -- played a part in loughner's life and actions. and even Palin -- especially Palin -- who pretends to be such a worshiper of America -- has plenty of critical anger regarding America. i just think her anger makes no sense logically.
she is angry chiefly at class discrimination. she is looked down on by elites -- such as me, i presume. but, incoherently, her answer to this situation is not to deal head on and courageously with the economic and political causes (unfettered capitalism with no government regulation) that brought about our high levels of inequality. no, her answer is to menace elites -- presumably, only left-leaning elites, not conservative elites -- with patriotism. and to continue those free market policies which gave the elites such power. go figure.
Palin cannot have her cake and eat it, too. she cannot deliberately invoke gun violence in her political speech and expect people to accept that she is at the same time pure as the driven snow. her repeated use of the word 'reload,' for example, is a clear flirtation with violence. my criticism here is not the oft-repeated call for 'civility.' what does that even mean? holding the door for old ladies? i don't think civility is very important in politics. politics is a tough business. but flirtation with violent, clearly eliminationalist rhetoric -- any metaphors which refer to killing political opponents -- has no place in democratic politics.
Palin's defenders make absurd parodies of the criticism levelled against her, 'wondering' aloud if they can even say things like 'up in arms' anymore. these tactics are too cute by half. plenty of political language derives from physical acts (lash out) or military language (outflank, defeat, trench warfare). but most of these terms have been in long use in politics and are no longer used for their original meaning. we rarely use 'up in arms' anymore to mean people have picked up guns to fight. it is used almost exclusively to refer to widespread anger and condemnation.
'reload' is not one of those widely used metaphorical terms. it is used specifically to refer to putting more ammunition in one's gun. this is precisely why Palin used it so often and so insistently. she liked flirting with the angry crowd, giving them a little of what they wanted. that is certainly her right. but she cannot have it both ways, flirting with violence and avoiding criticism for it. time for her to man up. she said it. she owns it. she used the word for its explicit linkage to violence. and now she denies it, like a dancer who shows her leg and then angrily denies that she was using sex to titillate her audience.
the titillation of violence. it excites extremists on the Right. unfortunately, this titillation with violent speech has percolated upwards, and been appropriated by some leaders on the Right.
and yes, the violent language she and other leaders on the Right have used since Obama came into office did play a part -- however small, however diffuse -- in the political culture within which Loughner decided to act. crazy people are aware, even hyper aware, of the culture around them. to think they are just trapped in their heads without any awareness of what is going on around them is disingenuous and is, as usual with many of the Right's arguments, little linked to reality and how it happens. we are all in society. we are all in our predicament together. we share the good and we share the bad. one can't pretend that we share all good things but bad things are totally and absolutely individual.
Thursday, January 6, 2011
Juan Cole on Gaza
The Norwegian newspaper Aftenpost has released a March, 2008, US embassy cable describing the Israeli blockade and siege of Occupied Gaza as an attempt to reduce the society to the lowest possible level of functioning without provoking a “humanitarian crisis” (presumably mass starvation).
“Israeli officials have confirmed to Embassy officials on multiple occasions that they intend to keep the Gazan economy functioning at the lowest level possible consistent with avoiding a humanitarian crisis.”
And, with regard to taking money out of circulation in Gaza, a deflationary policy used as a tool of oppression:
‘ As part of their overall embargo plan against Gaza, Israeli officials have confirmed to econoffs on multiple occasions that they intend to keep the Gazan economy on the brink of collapse without quite pushing it over the edge ‘
It seems to me the Israeli right-wingers missed their mark, since 55% of Palestinians in Gaza are food-insecure and 10% of children show signs of stunting from malnutrition. I’d call that a humanitarian crisis. What the despicable Israeli officials meant by their phrase, of course, is that a mass die-off should be avoided that would bring to bear world pressure to abandon this criminal policy. The Israeli blockade of Gaza is illegal in international law and violates explicit United Nations Security Council resolutions. (Wasn’t defying UNSC resolutions given as a reason by the American Right for invading and overthrowing the Iraqi government?)
Although the MSM is putting the blockade in the past tense (“Israel intended”), it is still very much being pursued. Virtually no Palestinian made goods are allowed to be exported. A very slight easing of imports has been permitted, and Egypt is letting in some volunteer aid, as with the recent Asian flotilla. You wouldn’t want your own child to live as Palestinian children are mostly living in today’s Gaza.
This Israeli policy also violates the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 on the treatment of populations in Occupied Territories (yes, Israel still occupies Gaza even though it is not actively colonizing it any more):
“Israeli officials have confirmed to Embassy officials on multiple occasions that they intend to keep the Gazan economy functioning at the lowest level possible consistent with avoiding a humanitarian crisis.”
And, with regard to taking money out of circulation in Gaza, a deflationary policy used as a tool of oppression:
‘ As part of their overall embargo plan against Gaza, Israeli officials have confirmed to econoffs on multiple occasions that they intend to keep the Gazan economy on the brink of collapse without quite pushing it over the edge ‘
It seems to me the Israeli right-wingers missed their mark, since 55% of Palestinians in Gaza are food-insecure and 10% of children show signs of stunting from malnutrition. I’d call that a humanitarian crisis. What the despicable Israeli officials meant by their phrase, of course, is that a mass die-off should be avoided that would bring to bear world pressure to abandon this criminal policy. The Israeli blockade of Gaza is illegal in international law and violates explicit United Nations Security Council resolutions. (Wasn’t defying UNSC resolutions given as a reason by the American Right for invading and overthrowing the Iraqi government?)
Although the MSM is putting the blockade in the past tense (“Israel intended”), it is still very much being pursued. Virtually no Palestinian made goods are allowed to be exported. A very slight easing of imports has been permitted, and Egypt is letting in some volunteer aid, as with the recent Asian flotilla. You wouldn’t want your own child to live as Palestinian children are mostly living in today’s Gaza.
This Israeli policy also violates the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 on the treatment of populations in Occupied Territories (yes, Israel still occupies Gaza even though it is not actively colonizing it any more):
Monday, December 27, 2010
from John Mearsheimer
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.”
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.”
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."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
