Last night, which happened to be International Holocaust Remembrance Day, I attended a lecture by Pulitzer prize winning comic book artist (or graphic novelist) Art Spiegelman. It was supposed to be a talk on tolerance and art, but he self-deprecatingly waved away these weighty subjects. “Everything I know I learned from comic books,” he said. “So I’m going to talk about comic books.”
And for the next two hours, that’s exactly what he did, talking and joking his way through a brief history of comic books, from the first old French comic strips to the now critically acclaimed “graphic novels” like The Watchmen, or his own masterpiece, Maus, which grapples in alternating humor and horror with his father’s memories of surviving Auschwitz, and his own turmoil in understanding that history.
Fortunately for the audience, the talk, like Spiegelman’s work, was not limited to words. On a giant screen Spiegelman guided us from one comic to the next–some his, many from others who he took inspiration from. And bit by bit, as he traversed the world of comics from the early days of racial caricatures to the modern world, where entire populations were subdued by the fear of Islamist reprisal over the Danish cartoons, (a subject he did a cover-story for Harper’s magazine on and which was subsequently banned in Canada) to the propaganda posters the Nazi’s used in the lead-up to the mass-execution of the Jews in Europe, Spiegelman drove home his overarching point:
These are not just lines on paper.
I never understood the old rhyme “sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me.” It always struck me that this was quite the opposite of the truth. A more truthful cliche might be “a picture’s worth a thousand words.” Spiegelman’s talk led us to the concept of physiognomy, or the “assessment of a person’s character or personality from their outer appearance” which was once considered almost a science, but has, regardless of its lack of scientific merit, certainly been a tool used by illustrators and dictators alike to propagate stereotypes, either for humorous purposes, or for the seeding of hate within cultures.
In much the same way that Nazis exploited the tenets of Darwinism to promote their vision of the superior German race, Nazi propagandists used comics, and physiognomy, to create an impression that Jews were somehow sub-human. The image of the Jew as a rat has been ingrained into the international psyche. The Nazis used this to great effect, and as Spiegelman pointed out, we still refer to the Holocaust as the “extermination” of the Jews rather than as a mass-murder.
It could be argued that as we enter further and further into an era of mass-media and visual information, images will become even more important in how we view the world–what’s shown, as much as what isn’t. The Danish cartoons are an example of how in the name and guise of tolerance, fear can lead us to censorship. Of course, the Arab as a terrorist is almost as universal an image as the Jew as a rat. And so we come to that cross-roads: on the one hand, images were instrumental in so many horrible efforts, from segregation to the Holocaust; and on the other, that most prized freedom of speech. I suppose in the end we must take the bad with the good. There will always be hate, after all, but freedom of speech is a fragile and precarious right.
In any case, all of this leads to the question of Pope Benedict’s rehabilitation of Bishop Williamson into the fold of the Catholic Church. Williamson, as we all know by now, is an adamant Holocaust denier, who is on record stating that “the historical evidence is hugely against 6 million Jews having been deliberately gassed in gas chambers as a deliberate policy by Adolf Hitler.” Pope Benedict has been quick to decry such Holocaust denial in an attempt to quell the uproar over Williamson’s reinstatement.
Of course, there are words and then there are symbols. The symbol of Benedict welcoming Williamson back into the Church is a great deal more powerful than the words he’s used to whitewash the scandal. A picture’s worth a thousand words, remember. We refer to acts like this as symbolic gestures, and regardless of what the Pontiff says to the contrary, this new embrace of Williamson is a symbol of the very sort of thing the Catholic Church has been attempting to distance itself from–old hatreds, old divisions. The history of the Church and the Jews is not a pleasant one. John Paul II worked for years to change that, and it seems Pope Benedict is as determined to sabotage what his predecessor begun.
And yet, here we come again to that confluence of freedom and consequence. Freedom of religion, of speech, of practice, can often come into conflict with sensibility, cultural sensitivity, and so forth. After all, Holocaust denial is not forbidden by the Church even if one would hope that the basic precepts of Christianity would render it unthinkable, it should still be allowed as protected speech, however despicable. In Germany it is illegal to deny the Holocaust. In Canada, hate-speech is defined by the State, and can be banned outright. So do we give the State this power to define what is hate, what is free, which symbols and words are merely scribbles, and which are swords? Once upon a time the State in question was Nazi Germany, or Stalinist Russia. The State, after all, is changeable as are human hearts, and human words. Our best course is to keep them separate–a separation of Thought and State, no matter the drivel that can, and does, produce.
After all, none of these words, images, cartoons or symbols are mere “lines on paper.” They hold consequence; the power to destroy or heal; the power to stir a nation to war, or lull it to sleep.
Comments open at The League of Ordinary Gentlemen
Read the whole thing.Lord, there is no such city anywhere, but all is a vision. America’s spires and turrets are built on mountains of debt and a fairyland of trust in the faithless apostles of the unregulated Free Market. We have indulged ourselves in fantasies of national superiority and continue to do so, all the while condemning the Islamists who make no bones of their urge to subdue the world to their own vision of harsh justice and superiority. Think Obama won’t perpetuate these fantasies? He’s going to send even more troops into Afghanistan, recapitulating the failures of Bush in Iraq, in the one place in the world where every textbook of military history tells us empires go to die. Less Lincoln and more Plutarch for President Obama: let our Fearless Leader see how Alexander fared east of Persia, both in the nature of Alexander’s successes and failures.
Anon, the whole fair city had disappeared, the reckoning has come due. Yet the illusion has not been dispelled.
Obama is a fine man, as good a man as the times have produced and the country is well-pleased with him, both Republicans and Democrats alike are charmed by his glamour. But of old, the word Glamour meant a spell of illusion...
In his final acts of clemency, President George W. Bush on Monday commuted the prison sentences of two former U.S. Border Patrol agents whose convictions for shooting a Mexican drug dealer ignited fierce debate about illegal immigration. [emphasis mine]Final acts? Meaning, no love for Libby? Wow.
Democratization in recent years has not generally contributed to U.S. interests, and it certainly has not contributed to greater peace and security. From empowering Hamas to building up an aggressive nationalist demagogue in Georgia to boosting socialist “people power” in Bolivia and Venezuela to provoking ethnic conflict in Kenya, genuine democratic elections have produced a number of undesirable outcomes for the nations involved and for U.S. interests in their respective regions. The idea of “democratic peace” is a myth, and the politicization of ethnicity and religion that democratization has involved in many parts of Africa, Latin America and the Near East has led to terrible results. Why we should want more of this is a mystery, but like much related to the management of the empire this is something we are not supposed to challenge.
Of the 872,000 arrests in 2007 for marijuana-related offenses, almost 90 percent were for simple possession of the dried vegetation in question. The typical arrestee is younger than 30. Think college-age kid caught lighting up a joint. Now, multiply that by 775,000 — that’s where a significant chunk of your drug war dollars are going.You're damn right you're talking real money.
The price of deploying an army of local, state and federal cops, prosecutors and guards to arrest, try and imprison the perpetrators of this non-scourge? Using data from 2000, Harvard economist Jeffrey Miron estimated it as $7.7 billion4 per year while a 2007 study, by public policy expert Jon Gettman, figured it closer to $10.7 billion 5 per year.
Most of that money is eaten up by law enforcement according to Miron, with $2.94 billion going to prosecution costs in 2000, and less than half a billion toward incarceration.
Add in the revenue we’d eventually gain if marijuana were regulated and taxed like alcohol and tobacco (from $6.2 billion to as much as $31.1 billion per year), and you’re talking real money.
So, add to that the tax benefits of legalization, much of which could go to paying for better border security–you find yourself with a weakened network of drug cartels, as the market for smugglers will basically dry up except for imported hard drugs, which have a much smaller market share; you have more money to combat harder drugs from all these new cost-savings and increased tax revenues--basically you get a three-in-one: economic stimulus, increased national security, and increased liberty for non-violent, normal, and suddenly law-abiding Americans.
The economic stimulus would be extremely beneficial for this country at this point in history, with the recession looming. Legalized marijuana would be good for a wide variety of businesses, from medicinal to fast food chains. It is becoming more essential than ever for national security, as Mexico is looking more and more as though it is on the verge of total collapse--right up there with our nuclear pal Pakistan.
So in sum, I think the libertarian ideal of "your body, do what you want with it" is noble in purpose, but simply not pragmatic. And I'm not sure it's morally right either, no matter how theoretically good it sounds. Some of these drugs are literally horrible, addictive poisons that should simply not be given a pass by society at large. Others, like pot, are misunderstood, have few if any side-effects save the munchies, and could act as a bridge to a better, more civilized nation.
When Radley Balko warns of the "militirization of our police" I concur, but I think legalizing pot and keeping the other drugs illegal wll so temper this whole "war" that this will become far less of an issue. Police will get to be cops, looking for real bad guys or people who are legitimitaly ruining their lives with actual drugs.
Fredoosso warns that:
"Despite the wishful thinking of its proponents, drug legalization would result in broader drug use, and for exactly the same reasons a legal narcotics market tends to reduce the size of an illegal one—lower prices, greater convenience, more reliable supply, and far more security in one’s transactions."I agree with this, too. This is one reason I think only marijuana should be legalized and not the other drugs. While I think we should lose the misnomer "War on Drugs" I think we should maintain a robust police effort to combat drug smuggling, and a larger societal effort to help addicts. Legalizing pot would also take the dealer out of the picture. The number one reason that pot is a gateway drug is because it's purchased from a dealer. So take out that middle man, and replace him with a clerk at a supermarket. Then you're much more likely to purchase Doritos with your weed as opposed to an eight-ball of Columbia's finest.
Also, the hit that drug cartels would take from the money lost over pot-sales, and the increased expense of smuggling the harder drugs, would actually drive up the cost of these drugs, making them more difficult to sell and to purchase. Supply and demand would drop significantly, and a healthier, legal alternative would be right there at your local Conoco.
So keep heroin illegal, but stop locking up our potheads. Send our police out to bring down meth labs, but let our stoners have their midnight snacks in peace. Use our border patrol agents to stop human smuggling, or to sniff out shipments of cocaine, but let the joint-smoking-hippies cross freely. This is a national security issue as well as a moral issue. And it would be good for our economy to boot.
I actually said something similar to this to a co-worker today, at least the part about a War on Birds. And you know, I thought at the time "Somebody else has already said this, I'm sure, by now. Somebody much more famous than myself..." That's the tricky thing about saying something funny or clever. It's almost never original, even if you did come up with it on your own. One more reason to embrace humility, I suppose...While most birds probably wish to peacefully coexist with humans, it is becoming increasingly clear that a small group of radicalized avians are hell-bent on destroying our way of life. These radical birdists hate us for our freedom. This can not stand.
I, for one, look forward to President Bush's declaration of a War on Birds. Unfortunately, this will last only four days, after which President Obama will no doubt appoint this guy as special envoy to the avian community.
I’m sorry, but if we don’t have an inquest into what happened during the Bush years — and nearly everyone has taken Mr. Obama’s remarks to mean that we won’t — this means that those who hold power are indeed above the law because they don’t face any consequences if they abuse their power.
Let’s be clear what we’re talking about here. It’s not just torture and illegal wiretapping, whose perpetrators claim, however implausibly, that they were patriots acting to defend the nation’s security. The fact is that the Bush administration’s abuses extended from environmental policy to voting rights. And most of the abuses involved using the power of government to reward political friends and punish political enemies.
I'm torn on this subject--truly torn. I can't see any fault with transparency, with holding those who occupy our highest offices accountable, perhaps even more accountable than any others. But if we are to go into it with Krugman's presuppositions--basically asserting that there was abuse even before it's been proven--than aren't we waging a political vendetta more than seeking justice?
...a group of hardline Orthodox Jews took over control of that territory and organized a resistance movement. They also steadfastly refused to recognize the new Palestinian state, arguing that its creation was illegal and that their expulsion from Israel was unjust. Imagine that they obtained backing from sympathizers around the world and that they began to smuggle weapons into the territory. Then imagine that they started firing at Palestinian towns and villages and refused to stop despite continued reprisals and civilian casualties.To me this question doesn't even merit too serious a response, yet I will give it my best. The circumstances would be so utterly different. For one, Israel is already surrounded by Arab States, closed off, in a sense, from her neighbors. It is already (and was more so pre-1967) a sort of Gaza, albeit a rather strong and wealthy one by comparison. Nevertheless, it is a country surrounded on virtually all sides by hostile enemies and less hostile allies.Here's the question: would the United States be denouncing those Jews in Gaza as "terrorists" and encouraging the Palestinian state to use overwhelming force against them?
Here's another: would the United States have even allowed such a situation to arise and persist in the first place?
Here's the question: would the United States be denouncing those Jews in Gaza as "terrorists" and encouraging the Palestinian state to use overwhelming force against them?Hard to answer since this situation would never have occurred under an Arab conquest of Israel. Had it, somehow defying all evidence to the contrary, I'm sure it would be denounced by much of the world. Then again, the Arabs started the 67 war, so not only would they be the victors, but also the aggressors. Digging deeper into Walt's point, I agree that the US should do more to constructively criticize Israel. After all, the one-sided outlook hasn't helped anybody, and at some point the US will have to help save Israel from itself--largely by denouncing the settlements in the West Bank. However, no excuse for Palestinian terrorism need be given. The terror, from either side--and there were, in the lead-up to Statehood, many Jewish terrorist groups as well, not to mention British officers acting as terrorists, and of course many Arabs playing that role from the earliest days.
Here's another: would the United States have even allowed such a situation to arise and persist in the first place?Did the United States intervene in '67? Likely we would have let Israel fall at that point, and would have done very little to prevent the ensuing massacre. Had the Israelis actually been cordoned off into Gaza (Arabs do live in Israel proper, by the way) then I suppose it would depend on the situation as it unfolded. Like I said above, I simply don't believe that a Palestinian State would have emerged, so the comparison is almost impossible to make. Had it happened, though, I think America would certainly denounce both sides, though quite likely the Arabs more.
First, this does say something important about the miserable state of the conservative blogosphere as a journalistic medium, and it also tells us something about the thorough Palinification of the right. Palin was praised and embraced because of her perceved ordinariness, and her lack of expertise was regarded by her admirers as an advantage and a desirable trait, and now we are treated to the journalistic equivalent of Palin’s qualifications for the position she sought. In journalism as in politics, standards, qualifications and expertise are now to be thrown out; average-ness, ordinariness and ignorance are to be prized as proof of one’s authenticity. Like Palin’s pseudo-populism, which actually helps preserve and strengthen the hold the establishment has by making populism idiotic, this sort of “amateur” journalism does more to discredit amateurs and reinforce the pretensions of professional journalists than anything else. Far from marking the beginning of a serious rivalry with such outfits as TPM, this heralds the irrelevance of the conservative blogosphere as a vehicle for journalism.This is important. Not only is the conservative movement entering a phase of "idiotic" populism, driven largely by mediocrity (there is a vast difference between "the common man" who happens to be extraordinarily qualified and "the common man" that is completely out of their league, as was Palin) but the very most populist efforts any political group can hope for these days--independent journalism and blogging--are becoming crippled in the process.
Goodbye, Father. I'll speak for you. I speak for all mediocrities
in the world. I am their champion. I am their patron saint. On
their behalf I deny Him, your God of no mercy. Your God who
tortures men with longings they can never fulfill. He may forgive
me: I shall never forgive Him.
Mediocrities everywhere, now and to come: I absolve you all!
Amen! Amen! Amen!
Georgia has sold a partial management stake in the hydroelectric plant that supplies almost half the country's power to a Russian state-controlled energy firm for $9 million.One might consider this a national security issue, depending on the nature of the contract and the business relationship. Then again, the devil is in the details. Russians were already using the plant for energy which they weren't paying for. It appears now they will be.
From 2001 until 2004, when he received his final payments from the I.M.F., Mr. Geithner paid his state and federal income taxes but did not pay self-employment payroll taxes. The I.M.F., as an international organization, does not withhold U.S. payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare from its American employees’ paychecks, so they are required to pay the roughly 15 percent tax on their own. The Obama transition is calling his mistake a common error for American employees of the I.M.F.What really bothers me about this is that the last thing we, as a country, need right now is a dishonest, sneaky, tax-evading Secretary of the Treasury. We've had a bad enough time with Paulson, who I personally wouldn't trust with my money (if that were an option)--we don't need Geithner embroiled in a scandal the moment he hits the ground. Beyond the scandal, though, we don't want a man who can't be trusted to pay his own taxes running the Treasury Department during this period of turmoil. It sends the wrong message. Of course, with the inauguration only days away, we're awfully late in the game finding a new Sec. of the Treasury.After a 2006 Internal Revenue Service audit identified the lapse on his 2003 and 2004 tax returns, Mr. Geithner paid tax and interest of $17,230 and the I.R.S. waived penalties, according to the transition.
That leaves for Mr. Geithner the question of why he did not correct the earlier years’ non-payment of self-employment taxes after the 2006 IRS audit identified the problem for 2003 and 2004.
But Obama vetters discovered the same lapse for 2001 and 2002 and brought it to Mr. Geithner’s attention last Nov. 21, after which he paid tax and interest of $25,970, transition officials say.
An Alaska lottery held to raise money for a group that helps sexual abuse victims had a surprise winner: a convicted sex offender.No kidding? Also...Alec Ahsoak, who according to the state sex offender registry was convicted in 1993 and 2000 for sexual abuse of a minor, came forward Saturday with the winning ticket for the $500,000 Lucky Time Pull Tabs jackpot.
Proceeds of the lottery help Standing Together Against Rape in Anchorage, a nonprofit group that offers support to sexual assault victims among other services.
"It's not how we had envisioned the story going," Nancy Haag, the group's executive director, told CNN Radio.
Alaska has the highest per capita number of rape cases in the United States, according to FBI statistics.Not quite the vision I received watching Northern Exposure...
That's right. Approximately $100,000 dollars to swim, sail and blog for six months in the Great Barrier Reef.Wanted: one "island caretaker", must be able to swim and willing to move to Hamilton Island in Australia's tropical Whitsundays to begin 1 July. Flexible hours, six-month salary of $150,000 (£75,000), non-negotiable.
Caretaking duties do not, island bosses insist, extend to litter-picking and sieving leaves and other detritus from the pool. Instead, the eventual incumbent will be paid to explore the crannies – both on land and underwater – of the Great Barrier Reef's 600 islands, reporting back through a fortnightly internet diary with photos and video.
The job is being advertised around the world. Candidates have until 22 February to submit an online video application.Sounds just awful, doesn't it? Application information can be found here.In May, 10 shortlisted candidates and one wildcard, voted for by visitors to the Tourism Queensland website, will be invited to the islands for a four-day final interview process. The successful candidate will start the new job on 1 July.
Mr Hayes says he is expecting thousands of applications: "I'm having to beat my staff off with a stick at the moment because most of them want to apply too."
I have no objection to this internet sensation seeking to extend his fifteen minutes of fame. By all means, write a book, hit the Sunday morning chat circuit, or even run for Congress. These are opportunities for any American and Mr. Wurzelbacher should feel free to pursue them all. But we should probe a bit deeper into Joe’s qualifications as a war correspondent, as this is generally not the first assignment a cub reporter pulls upon joining a network. We might expect him to have a command of, or at least a passing familiarity with the languages spoken by the locals. He should be well versed in the history of the conflict, the primary participants, and the leading power figures. Lastly, as a reporter, we would expect an engaging figure on camera, exuding competence and armed with excellent communication skills in his native tongue. Have we any signs of this?Good question. I think the answer is rather obvious....
Hamas may ultimately be destroyed by a Gaza takeover. But long after they're dead, it will be Israel that has to live with a new occupation.Jason:
It's therefore in our interest to make the ceasefire workable, before a messy invasion. Israel ought to concede to allowing Hamas to maintain oversight of its borders, alongside Israeli forces on their respective border, and international forces along the Egyptian border. I don't know what harm there could be in such a concession, as long as non-Hamas monitors still have access to everything coming in and out. And in exchange for this concession, Israel can demand that international forces be stationed within Gaza, rather than Egypt. Egypt, (which has nearly as much of an interest in concluding this mess, as it is nothing but a daily public relations disaster for Mubarak) for its part, should exert serious pressure on Hamas to accept this trade. And if it is unable to do so, Egypt should accept a multinational force in the Sinai, as a good faith gesture to make up for Hamas's intractability.
In exchange for the total cessation of rocket fire from Gaza, Israel should agree to a formalized schedule for lifting the blockade. This is in any case in Israeli interests, as many have pointed out that miserable conditions in Gaza have done nothing to damage Hamas, and may in fact have strengthened the organization.
It's hard to say what will actually achieve peace. I do hope Israel secures Gaza at least to the point that a lift of the blockade will become possible. I hope, also, that Egypt will find some way to clamp down on smuggling over their borders--not bread, but bombs and rockets and machine guns.The message is a clear one. This is the price you pay when groups like Hamas are elected. This is the price terrorist organizations pay when you endanger the lives of citizens of other countries. The lessons and results may be more binding and constructive then permanent evacuations or cease fires that only secure the status quo and, ironically enough, contributes and guarantees more suffering and death in the future.
The region deserves peace and the people of Gaza and Israel deserve to live quietly and securely. I think its time we give war a chance.
Shortly after my 21st birthday I purchased an Amtrak ticket to Denver, packed up my bags, and headed off to meet a girl (now my wife). It was all very romantic, save for the hangover I carried along with me that early July morning. It was also very comfortable. I was in a nearly empty car, and there was lots of room to stretch out. I could sleep easily, and reading didn't make me sick to my stomach as it does in the back of a car. It was far, far more cozy than flying.Like Special Agent Mulder, I want to believe in this. In particular, I do believe that it would be a good idea to make these kind of investments. But I also know that many people hear about the idea of spending $40 billion in California and $32 billion in the Northeast and maybe comparable amounts to build HSR systems in Florida and the rust belt and they start to blanche. So now that all of a sudden there’s broad political consensus in favor of adding a few hundred billion dollars to the deficit, I really want to put my hand up and say “hey! look over here! some productive infrastructure investments we should make!”I want to believe, too. Read the rest of Yglesias's post, because he's absolutely right about this. Rail could do so much for this country--it's green, it's a long-term investment in infrastructure that basically is exactly the kind of thing Government should be involved in, and in creates American jobs, and lots of them.
So the settlements appear less like Islands and more like cracks in a windshield, or the burrowed mines of ants. Either way, I imagine settling there is claustrophobic. This certainly illustrates just how difficult it would be for Israel to actually un-settle the West Bank, and similarly how difficult a two-state solution really is.
have not been caused by religious conservatives or adherence to free market beliefs, but instead by a sort of "talk radio" dogmatism in which any given issue becomes a litmus test for whether one is a "true" conservative or Republican.Which is absolutely true, and essentially what I mean when I describe mainstream conservatives as "shrill" or "brash" and similarly when I complain that conservatives are rarely "conservative in disposition" anymore, but in talking points only. Which leads to my term "talking-points-conservatism." (we might also discuss "talking-heads conservatism")
In that sense, then. the troubles of Republicanism now and of the Tories in the last 15 years, were built upon their previous successes. The difficulty is that the second (or third) generation is rarely as talented or adaptable as the trailblazers who won power in the first place. Instead of finding fresh ideas and solutions, they inherit positions and prejudices that, because they worked once before, are assumed to be eternal truths rather than particular answers to particular problems at a particular time.So here we have the framework of modern conservatism, with its foundational dogma stemming from the early 80's and anyone who strays outside of its ideological borders labeled heretics. My forays into the problems I see with supply-side economics are enough to ostracize me from many circles. I stress again, though, it is not so much the difference in ideology but in disposition and approach that causes this to be a problem.
And because they're seen as eternal truths, any deviation from them is grounds for heresy.
For what it's worth, I think of the three phrases to describe the problem, my "talk radio dogmatism" is the catchiest but probably least accurately captures the problem. Massie's "Cult of the Idea of Reagan" is probably the most accurate, but also the most verbose. E.D.'s "talking points conservatism" pretty much splits the difference.I would suggest again reading Austin Bramwell's "The Right to Remain Silent" as it touches on the value (or lack thereof) in being part of "the movement." The trouble, of course, is that the movement is so much more influential on the face of things than the few independently minded conservatives out there, who choose to evaluate the world through lenses other than Reagan conservatism.
The American public surely gets this: A majority in a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll say Burris should be blocked from joining the Senate and Illinois should hold a special election.Yes, the reliable masses. Surely they can interpret the laws for us...
settlers are also Israelis of no particular ideological bent, who bought homes in settlements because they worked low-paying jobs, and couldn't afford to live in a city. These people live in places like Gilo and Har Homa, well-established communities whose crimes, while still very relevant to the future of a Palestinian state, are now 30 or 40 years in the past. Enough time, in other words, so that we must now grapple with the idea of second-generation settlers, guilty of nothing more than being born in the wrong place. These people deserve to be resettled fairly, and it should be the duty of Israel and the international community to look out for them just as carefully as we will look out for Palestinian refugees who have to be resettled outside of Israel.This is a good point, and I know this has been faced on a smaller scale with the Gaza withdrawal, where certainly second (and third?) generation settlers were being removed from their homes, often to massive protests. The West Bank would surely be more difficult.
"We've been trying to tell the American electorate all along that there are better ways to be a friend to Israel than to give it a blank check and a license to kill -- but nobody listens until there's more blood in the street."In regards to the impossible contradiction of West Bank settlements and a Palestinian State, Max agrees, and also notes that:
"maintaining such a contradiction has been in the interest of Israeli politicians for many years now, in no small part because of the United States' simplistic, dumb support of this little country."I think it's good to hear this sort of thing coming out of Israel. And one wonders at the fact that if, as Max states, the Israeli moderates have been humming this tune now for years, why the American public seem so deaf to the message (and I've no doubt that's exactly what moderates have been saying for years, either...). It's possible that the so-called pro-Israel hard-liners are successful because there actually is and has been a very vocal anti-Semitic element to this debate, and they are able to crowd out honest critics of Israeli policy by playing the bigot card.
When Israel invaded Lebanon two and half years ago, the campaign was, by all conventional measures of military matters, a resounding success. The only problem was that Israel was fighting an asymmetric war—that is, an established nation-state (think F-14 firing missiles) was taking on an amorphous, state-like social charity and terrorism organization (think screaming poor person with a grenade launcher). The funny thing about this kind of conflict is that the little guy usually wins by losing, and the big guy is usually ruined by his success. On CNN International, Israel looked like a horrible monster, and on the proverbial “Arab street,” Hezbollah got cred for standing up to the “Zionist entity.” Hamas, which at the moment is much smaller and less well organized than Hezbollah, will undoubtedly benefit greatly from losing a war to Israel and will soon be rewarded with an enlarged donor base, new recruits, and a reputation for toughness. Getting attacked by the Israelis is good for organization branding.I recall Max (and others) writing on how this was a push to gain enough security capabilities to actually re-establish pre-1967 borders. Hard to say, but I suppose this is a possibility. Then again, isn't it rather like the cart before the horse?
It's a chilling film, and a stirring one. Watching German soldiers round up SS officers and almost, just almost effect a coup against Hitler is really a bitter-sweet experience, and well worth the price of admission...These critics are missing the larger meaning in the film - all of it is taken from history. When Kenneth Branagh’s General von Tresckow says, “God promised Abraham that he would not destroy Sodom if he could find ten righteous men… I have a feeling that for Germany it may come down to one,” it does not sound odd or out of place in the film. It is a statement of deep value. The real von Tresckow said, “The assassination must be attempted at all costs. Even if it should not succeed, an attempt to seize power in Berlin must be made. What matters now is no longer the practical purpose of the coup, but to prove to the world and for the records of history that the men of the resistance dared to take the decisive step. Compared to this objective, nothing else is of consequence.” No wonder that after von Tresckow committed suicide, making it look like a partisan attack to save others, the SS dug up his body and had it cremated.
Perhaps movie critics have become so jaded - and who wouldn’t become jaded after being bombarded by all the garbage Hollywood produces - that they have largely become unable to judge the films they are charged with reviewing. Or, perhaps the critics pay too much attention to the non-stop coverage of the Hollywood elite whom they think they know and often loathe as a result. I can’t admit to knowing much at all about actors or their personal lives. If, however, an actor makes a pronouncement about public policy, I do pay attention - long enough to scoff - unless, of course, the actor was someone like Jon Voight or Gary Sinise. This might explain the critics’ rush to dump on Cruise and Valkyrie. Cruise appears to be Hollywood’s equivalent to the kid who got picked on on the playground. He is an easy target. But without Cruise and the money from his United Artists studio, Valkyrie never would have been made in today’s largely shallow and inane Hollywood pool.
On the first day of the war, there were a few violent protests, not only in the territory but also East Jerusalem and the Old City. But I'm told that they fizzled quickly, and after eating lunch at my favorite place in the Muslim Quarter a few days back, I'm confident in that assessment.Now not to dodge the point of his post, but I'd like to spend a minute remarking on the nature of geography and fear. Max notes that as a resident of Jerusalem, he's basically surrounded on three sides by the West Bank. Essentially, he lives in an Israeli peninsula that juts out into hostile territory, all of which brings me to the question of West Bank settlements and their unique geographical conundrum. See the map below:
That news is striking in and of itself, but it becomes downright portentous when you recall that, not a week ago, top Hamas officials were calling on West Bank Palestinians to initiate a third intifada. The proclamation alone was enough to send a collective chill through Jerusalem. (I began standing a few extra feet away from fellow bus and taxi travelers, to protect against stabbing. A friend confessed to me that she had gotten herself so worked up that she actually got off a city bus four or five stops early.)
What strikes me about this map is that Max notes the fear of Jerusalem residents who are surrounded on three sides by Palestinians. Settlers in the West Bank are literally dry-land islanders. They are totally cut-off from Israel proper.
"But the Cult of Reagan actually helps explain the mess the Republican movement finds itself in. It used to be that it was the left that specialised in writing dissenters out of the movement; these days, in America at least, that's become a conservative trait. The RNC debate was illuminating in this respect: in addition to passing the Reagan litmus tests candidates were asked how many guns they own. And that was more or less it. Tick those boxes and you're a proper Republican; waver on either question and you're subject to suspicion."This is exactly what I mean about Talking-Points-Conservatives. Read the rest to see what I'm getting at here...and for a bit more depth on the matter, read this as well...
Jin Powell of the Cato Institute has an interesting article at NRO arguing that Warren Harding, not FDR, has the best record of any president in leading the country out of a serious economic downturn. Harding inherited from Wilson an economy that had shrunk 24% from 1920 to 1921, as well as a federal debt that had grown nearly 25 times from 1916 to 1919. Harding reduced income taxes, reduced federal spending, and led the country to its lowest level of peacetime unemployment ever, 1.8% in 1926. Mentioned only in passing by Powell is the fact that Harding “supported tariffs.” In fact, Harding signed the Fordney-McCumber tariff, which doubled the average tariff rate to 38%. In asking Congress to raise tariffs, Harding stated, “I believe in the protection of American industry . . .it is our purpose to prosper America first.” It is thus clear that a high tariff is perfectly consistent with smaller government and strong economic growth, and Americans looking to Harding’s policies for guidance today should not overlook his administration’s trade policy.This basically aligns with what I've been thinking lately. There is a damn good reason to protect American industry. It protects American jobs, keeps more Americans in a decent position to be good consumers, and keeps the profits and means of production in the USA.
The fact is thatI honestly have very little to add. It's a spot-on analysis of the situation, and I really am still left wondering why Israel took the bait. Do they honestly think they will be able to end the rocket attacks? Do you think they have the resolve or political will to carry this mission out to the end?Hamas is fully aware it is severely outgunned by Israel both in terms of manpower and in terms of weaponry. Thus, it has no possibility, ultimately, of winning a military victory over Israel - a fact of which they are most certainly aware. However, it can nonetheless legitimately declare victory if the Israelis are unable to achieve that which they nominally set out to achieve - which is in large part the cessation of the rocket attacks. So as long as Israel is unable, by sheer force, to put an end to the rocket attacks,Hamas will appear the victor to its constituents, as well as to its supporters in the rest of the Middle East and South Asia. Meanwhile, the continued rocket attacks don't have too much of an effect on international opinion because they are rather ineffective at actually killing people - this guarantees that the casualty figures for Israeli civilians will continue to dwarf the casualty figures for Palestinian civilians.
Even were Israel to break Gaza's government, Hamas will continue to have its social agencies, its shadow government of loyalty on the street, and its paramilitary. Any alternate government (a reinstalled Fatah?) imposed in the aftermath of an Israeli invasion will lack legitimacy. How could it not? A Hamas ejected from power might actually become more powerful, gaining greater standing in the eyes of the populace. No matter the end result — short of complete annihilation — Hamas will declare victory. If even one Hamas member remains left standing as the Israelis pull out, the banner of victorious resistance will be raised and new recruits will flock to the movement.I'm not entirely in agreement, but only because I'm not entirely sure about anything in this current conflict. As I'm wont to say, "The more I know, the less I know" and so I keep trying to dig up as much information on the matter as I can.
Despite the recommendations of his top prosecutor. Despite the press reports -- which you, dear reader, should Google in detail. Despite the evidence. Despite, daresay, the truth.And so von believes that Burris, due to his horrible, unforgivable (and I agree, it's pretty unforgivable) mistake should not be seated in the Senate.There is no polite way to put this: Burris is a f_cking potted plant. At best. There are moments in your life when you can make a decision. It's rare and it can definitely sneak up on you. A mistake or two can surely be forgiven -- but some cannot.
It's one thing to accept an appointment and fight for it -- Senate seats ain't easy to come by. But it's quite another to actually show up on Day 1 and intentionally create a media frenzy and sideshow on a day that needs to be devoted to gathering momentum for a potentially historic legislative agenda. Instead of allowing the media to report on that, Burris's antics ensured that he'll be the story of the day.Hey, I thought the move was smart. And besides, the media will still report on everything else. This was just a little publicity stunt by an obviously savvy politician.
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
intent of countries is never uniform, is unknowable, and ultimately can't be a panacea against culpability for acts of aggression, or we lose any meaningful ability to judge the behavior of nations. Intentionality, also, becomes a maneuver used to absolve our country or preferred states from sin, and it again rests on pure assertion: the United States and its favored nations never intend to kill civilians, while the antagonists of the United States always do.I understand and agree that we cannot know every intention of every actor on the world stage, let alone in our own office building or home. Freddie goes on to use Georgia and Russia as examples and I think these are fair examples. I have long wondered what the hell Georgia was thinking, and understand Russia's reaction whether or not I agreed with it.
There is a false and misguided notion that the rocket attacks or other random acts of violence are not really that significant to Israeli citizens. Nothing could be farther from the truth. These attacks, all attacks, on Israeli targets, both military and civilian, are viewed by the Israelis in the most serious light....
Hamas's current strategy of firing rockets into southern Israel is not just "fighting back" against an oppressor; it is a step that Hamas knew full well would provoke a major Israeli military response. This plays in turn to the interests of the Israeli right wing.Israel can be moved to a cease-fire, but never with Hamas rockets incoming.
This seems like an obvious conclusion, but one wonders if it is practical. Israel has to decide what's best for it now that it has bumbled into Gaza, regardless of the cessation of rocket-fire. While that would be a good move by Hamas, it probably won't be taken in good faith, given their track record.
However, it might give the moderates in Israel more of a chance, and give a blow to the hawks and further enable some dismantling of settlements, an obvious necessity if we're ever going to achieve peace in the region.
It's extraordinary to me every time I look at a map of Israel/Gaza/Palestine. So much of the problem in this conflict seems to be mere geography. I wonder, had the partition worked out differently, had the borders been drawn in some other manner--say North and South, with Jerusalem, of course, at the epicenter (or perhaps East and West...) would this conflict have gone differently? It certainly seems that having only one region (say, just the West Bank, no Gaza) to worry about would have been much simpler. The current version of the partition is not the same as the several proposed initially (which the Arabs refused) though I am in no position to claim they may have worked any better.
I think allowing gay couples to marry does strengthen the institution, because it ensures that everyone in a family has access to the same civil rites and rights, and so the heterosexual marriages are as affirmed as effectively as the gay ones. (It is not my experience that the straight siblings and families of gay people feel their marriages affirmed by excluding some of their own.) By removing the incentive for gay people to enter into false straight marriages, which often end in divorce or collapse, wrecked childhoods and betrayed spouses, heterosexual marriage is also strengthened. And the practical alternative to marriage equality - civil unions for straights and gays - presents a marriage-lite option for everyone that clearly does threaten traditional marriage in a way that gay marriage never could.This is a good take on the subject, and quite close to my own, though I would also advocate stricter divorce laws and other mechanisms to increase marriage success rates. I would also argue that any conservative who has the time to argue endlessly against gay marriage probably ought to be spending that time finding ways to save marriage in general--the culture at present is drifting toward marriage failure. Gay marriage likely won't help or hinder that, so long as our society at large, including not only divorce laws, but also cultural attitudes toward marriage and commitment, remains as shallow and hedonistic as it is now.
"The lack of emotional security of our American young people is due, I believe, to their isolation from the larger family unit. No two people - no mere father and mother - as I have often said, are enough to provide emotional security for a child. He needs to feel himself on in a wold of kinfolk, persons of variety in age and temperament, and yet allied to himself by an indissoluble bond which he cannot break if he could, for nature has welded him into it before he was born."Do you see what I mean? We need a wider net. My mom comes from a family of eight siblings, and when I was younger I was constantly surrounded by family. We ended up moving (several times) and as I grew into those restless, rebellious years I had virtually no (extended) family to speak of.
Trumpets over glassy hillsides mourn;
The burning of gazettes and memories
Of Caesar’s fall; of heaving seas.
The jewels and lace, too pale to adorn
The Queen’s collarbone, her face
A paler shade of gray, of chalk.
Too brittle now, she rolls to walk
The slightest fall her coup de grace.
The sound of bells, she’s ripped awake
To shadows ball-room dancing on the wall.
His face reminds her of her life, that’s all,
In every frame and photograph she takes
Down from the pegs. In cabinets,
In drawers she leaves them flat.
Bins of water; saucers for the cats.
Wind catches every eve and bow in pirouettes,
While Fates drift silently from word to word
From death to death, from lips to air.
The people have all gone down to the fair;
They move about in miniature, like promises unheard.
Repeatedly firing rockets into populated areas hoping to kill as many Israelis as possible seems like a pretty intolerable provocation to me! Can anyone think of any country that wouldn’t consider it so?It's true that this has been the question often raised by those advocating the strike (and I know Conor is very middle-ground on the whole thing, much as I am). The other side then complains of disproportionate warfare, civilian casualties etc. which are also all valid points.
Everything else is an argument of abstraction, bound up in immense controversy. However, sticking to cause and effect can at least bring us into the realm of logical speculation, sans emotion or bias.
It's sad to boil this down to a cost-benefit analysis, but that's the most realistic thing to do. Do the costs here outweigh the benefits? If so, what is the purpose of this attack? I think Peter Hitchens is right:
The operation’s real purpose is to improve the standing of two politicians, Tzipi Livni and Ehud Barak, in impending elections. Nobody should die for such a motive.
I'm not even so sure the motive is important--it is the results that matter most at this point, and I fear that the results will be bad. This is a repetition of Lebanon in 2006. The Israelis do not have the resolve to finish this sort of mission. This will embolden Hamas, of course. The suffering will be most felt by innocent Palestinians, and innocent Israelis.
I'm not going to get into better alternatives in this post. There is no easy way through this mess, of course. I hope I'm wrong.
A girl in grey, a boy in soldier red;
the dust of summer blurred to winter snow.
The two in pirouettes, the lovely dead.
A star of scarlet rests upon his head.
A sepulcher for children dug below.
A girl in grey, a boy in soldier red.
They marched like toys beneath a child’s bed,
And fell like boys all strung out in a row.
The two in pirouettes, the lovely dead.
They gathered men and boys alike and wed
their wintry eyes with bullets to the snow.
A girl in grey, a boy in soldier red.
She barely slept, though winter was in threads,
and summer woke to darkened streets of crows.
The two in pirouettes, the lovely dead.
The guns like rapid drumbeats filled their heads,
The streets dyed crimson, almost seemed to glow.
A girl in grey, a boy in soldier red.
The two in pirouettes, the lovely dead.
What else could the Israeli government have done? It could have lifted or ameliorated the siege, or better yet never imposed it. If we grant that cutting off Gaza was actually a blunder, remedying that blunder would be a first step. It is not certain that ending Gaza’s isolation would weaken Hamas, but its isolation has done nothing but strengthen Hamas’ position. Short of an extremely difficult and risky urban war aimed at destroying the organization entirely, which would cause massive dislocation and suffering, that seems the best means of weakening Hamas politically by forcing it to (mis)govern Gaza under relatively normal conditions. There will undoubtedly be a core of support for the group that will remain, but surely the political goal that Israel wants to reach is to have a majority of people in Gaza grow disillusioned with Hamas and to drive wedges between the group and most of the population.I think this is very good advice, though I have one concern. If Hamas were to be pushed out, would it necessarily be Fatah who took their place? Or would Hamas 2.0 take over, much in the same way Hamas replaced Fatah?
"When we just saw that man, I think it was Mr. Myers [i.e. biologist P.Z. Myers], talking about how great scientists were, I was thinking to myself the last time any of my relatives saw scientists telling them what to do they were telling them to go to the showers to get gassed … that was horrifying beyond words, and that’s where science — in my opinion, this is just an opinion — that’s where science leads you," - Ben Stein.Stein's comment is taken from an excerpt of an interview with Paul Crouch Jr. which John Derbyshire brought to light at NRO. For more of Derbyshire's thoughts on Stein and his Intelligent Design documentary and overall distaste for science, read this piece.
I think you hit the mark dead on concerning the point of the idiocy of Walt's hypothetical. One point you do not discuss is the context leading up to the 6 Day War. Why was "Palestine" not founded sometime during, say, '44-48? (Lack of will and Arab assistance.) Why was land set apart for a Jewish state in the first place? (Holocaust.) Certainly Walt doesn't address this. So, you correctly squelch his premise.
One point I will pick with you is the issue of settlements. The stubborn Palestinian insistence upon rejecting Jews in their midst has led to even more separatism, let alone the economic consequences. If the whole world insists upon integration of Arabs into Jewish Israel, why do they not condemn Palestinians for their discrimination? Would not both of the "two nations" be better off for inclusion of the other? More discrimination will just result in more separatism. Indeed, it has with the outlawing of Arab political participation this week in Israel.
By far, Palestinians are guiltier of insisting upon separation...while still insisting upon freedom to come in and out of Israel at will...while publicly threatening suicide bombings. They are not known for their reason.
Me:
Not at all, actually. The Zionist movement and British support for it predated the Holocaust, which came later and did, indeed, spur global Jewish support (and immigration). But no, that was not why land was set aside--in fact, much land was actually bought and paid for by the Zionists, though after 48/49 the borders were re-drawn and indeed some land was stolen from the Arabs.
The reason Palestine was never founded was that Jordan and Egypt occupied the West Bank and Gaza, and now Israel does.
Again, I'll have to disagree. The Israelis simply have no business building settlements in the West Bank. They have every right to defend themselves, to even (to some extent) redraw the pre-1967 borders, but until they exit the West Bank it will be literally IMPOSSIBLE to achieve a two-state solution. Find me one Israeli settler who would live willingly in a Palestinian State, not as an Israeli settler, but as a citizen of Palestine.
If you can't find any, then there is no reasonable way to assume peace can be achieved at the same time as massive and widespread settlement of the West Bank. It is counter-intuitive and, I think, comes at too great a cost.
I agree that an ideal Two-State solution would include Israeli Arabs and Palestinian Jews...but the latter is simply not practical. Israelis will never consent to Palestinian rule, and thus have to go back to Israel if Palestine is ever to be realized.
Commenter:
Yes, you are correct about the Jordan/Egypt lack of interest in the Palestinian state before Israel got possession of the land.
You think Israelis have no business in Gaza, what do you think about Palestinians living in Israel? No inconsistency there vis-a-vis long term solutions? Smarter people than I have agreed with you on the settlement issue and I have yet to hear a coherent answer to these questions.
Me:
Palestinians--well, actually Israeli Arabs live in Israel, many of whom consider themselves such, some who would rather go to Palestine if that State were created. It's not really inconsistent, as by all rights, under the initial agreement (which Egypt and Jordan broke, not the Palestinians) Israel was given a certain territory, and the Palestinians were given a certain territory. Never once, save by the law of the sword, was Israel ever permitted to settle Gaza or the West Bank.
And I would say, regarding the law of the sword, "He who lives by the sword, dies by the sword."
There must be a better way.
How to go about un-settling the West Bank? It's so hard to say. This is where American aid becomes so vital, I think. Israel unilaterally withdrawing from Gaza, and the subsequent FOOLISH push for elections there by the US, was such a messy affair that we ended up getting a quasi-legitimate Hamas.
In any case, anybody serious about Two States has to figure out what to do about the settlements. Terror can be fought, but these settlers have political weight within Israel. It's going to be much more difficult to find a way forward there than against the Hamas threat.
Also important to remember is many of the West Bank settlers were born there, and are not guilty of anything whatsoever. All they've known is life in the settlements. Yet they will eventually pay a price for it, guilt or no.
______________________________________________________
I thought it was a good supplement to the post, anyways. Am I wrong in my responses?