tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-88731212963561287112024-03-13T08:38:39.843-07:00Coping with the Newswherein I digest the news articles I read daily into a fine purée, to the best of my limited ability, for my own benefit and maybe someday for someone else'sSave the Oocytes!http://www.blogger.com/profile/13596820141399917244noreply@blogger.comBlogger37125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8873121296356128711.post-72059374956091499162012-07-27T10:22:00.001-07:002012-07-27T10:22:31.390-07:00Settler letter in NYTAt the prompting of Jewish Voice for Peace Boston, I composed a letter to the NYT complaining about a <a href="http://nytimes.com/2012/07/26/opinion/israels-settlers-are-here-to-stay.html">disgusting column </a>by settler Dani Dayan. Then I realized that they demand really short letters and composed two shorter versions. Here they are, shortest first. It's not like they're anything terrifically original, but hey, at least I wrote something.<br /><br />
<hr />
<br /><br /><br />
In Dani Dayan's op-ed (July 26, 2012), he claims that a two-state
solution is impossible, so the "international community" should accept
Israel's settlements as a fait accompli. But it is the very point of
Israel's settlement policy that the settlements help to close the window
on the two-state solution. Biblical irrendentism aside, a generous
welfare state exists for those willing to leave Israel and move to the
West Bank, providing an economic incentive to settlers to create
suitable "facts on the ground." By strategically using settlements and
the land-grabbing wall to remove large chunks of the West Bank and water
resources from Palestinians, and using setter-only roads and
checkpoints to carve the remainder into discontiguous cantons, Israel
makes a Palestinian state unviable; by continually expanding settlements
even during negotiations, Israel deliberately derails the bankrupt
"peace talks." Thus Dayan's main argument boils down to "a two-state
solution is impossible because we are working to make it impossible."<br />
<br />
<br /><br />Jeffrey D. Carlson,<br />
Wakefield, RI<br /><br />
<hr />
<br /><br />In his disturbing op-ed Thursday, the settler Dani Dayan promotes
Israel's illegal settlements in the occupied West Bank as the solution
to the problem Israel's oppression of the Palestinians has created. He
begins with a lazy justification based on a selective reading of history
before conveniently putting morality aside to put forth a realpolitik
argument for the settlements. <br />
<br />He disparages the two-state idea, making familiar false allegations
about Palestinian "rejectionism" and arguing that the anger of
Palestinians at their expulsion from their lands and their continued
oppression and refugee status would make their "extremism," if they had a
state, a danger to Israel's all-important security and that it
necessitates the continued denial of their rights. Thus the worse Israel
-- and its illegal adjuncts, as represented by Dayan -- treats
Palestinians, the more necessary their continued oppression becomes. <br />
<br />The crux of Dayan's argument for settlements is a similar exercise
in the snowballing of injustice. He claims that a two-state solution is
impossible, so the "international community" should accept Israel's
settlements as a fait accompli. But that the settlements help to close
the window on the two-state solution is the very point of the Israeli
policy. The fact that, as Dayan points out, Israelis are loath to leave
their homes in the West Bank for monetary compensation is due to the
fact that, apart from Biblical irredentism, a generous welfare state
exists for those willing to leave Israel (or like Dayan, immigrate from
abroad) and move to the West Bank, providing an economic incentive to
settlers to create suitable "facts on the ground." By strategically
using settlements and the land-grabbing wall to remove large chunks of
the West Bank and water resources from Palestinians, and carving the
remainder into discontiguous cantons with setter-only access roads and
checkpoints, Israel makes a Palestinian state unviable; by continually
expanding settlements even during negotiations, Israel deliberately
derails the already bankrupt "peace process." Thus Dayan's main argument
boils down to "a two-state solution is impossible because we are
working to make it impossible." <br />
<br />This is about the justification one would expect from someone
promoting an enterprise universally agreed to be criminal under
international law. It's ironic that the success that Dayan and his ilk
have had at promoting apartheid whilst and killing the two-state
solution will in the long run make inevitable a binational solution
granting Palestinians freedom to travel and genuinely equal rights. The
settlers will react poorly.<br />
<br /><br />Jeffrey D. Carlson,<br />Wakefield, RI<br /><br /><hr />
<br />
<br />It's difficult to know where to begin replying to the distortions and tortured rationalizations put forth by Dani Dayan (<a href="http://nytimes.com/2012/07/26/opinion/israels-settlers-are-here-to-stay.html" target="_blank">nytimes.com/2012/07/26/<wbr></wbr>opinion/israels-settlers-are-<wbr></wbr>here-to-stay.html</a>)
in his Thursday op-ed column in your pages, but one would not expect
any better from an official representative of a venture universally
recognized under international law to be criminal. It is remarkable it
was even printed.<br />
<br />Dayan starts off by describing the occupation as an "acquisition"
and sniffily insisting on Biblical terms for the occupied Palestinian
territories -- three decades ago this kind of linguistic warrior was
declaring that Palestinians don't exist and insisting they be called
merely "Arabs." He claims a Palestinian state, built on the remnants
Israel occupied ("in self-defense") after the 1967 war, would be
unnecessarily kind to Palestinians, given threats about "annihilation"
made in the immediate run-up to the war by the three Arab countries
Israel fought and by the leader of the PLO. Thus the right to
Palestinian self-determination on their own land is reconceptualized as a
favor or reward that Israel can choose (or not) to grant on the basis
of statements made forty-five years ago. Given the moral ground he has
to try to stand on, it's not surprising Dayan then decides to put aside
moral considerations in favor of realpolitik. <br />
<br />He argues that the anger of Palestinians at their expulsion from
their lands and their continued oppression and refugee status would make
their "extremism," if they had a state, a danger to Israel's
all-important security and that it necessitates the continued denial of
their basic rights. Thus the worse Israel -- and its illegal adjuncts,
as represented by Dayan -- treats Palestinians, the more necessary their
continued oppression becomes. <br />
<br />There's a similar snowballing justification in Dayan's insistence
that the "international community" should accept the settlements as a
fait accompli making a two-state solution impossible. In terms of
Israeli policy, that the settlements help to close the window on the
two-state solution is the very point. The fact that, as Dayan points
out, Israelis are loath to leave their homes in the West Bank for
monetary compensation is in fact a victory of Israeli policy: a rather
generous welfare state exists for those willing to leave Israel (or like
Dayan, immigrate from abroad) and move to the West Bank, providing an
economic incentive to settlers to create suitable "facts on the ground."
All of Dayan's disingenuousness about the long history of the "peace
process" aside, in the present the facts are that by strategically using
settlements and the land-grabbing wall to remove large chunks of the
West Bank and water resources from Palestinians, and carving the
remainder into discontiguous cantons with setter-only access roads and
checkpoints, Israel makes a Palestinian state unviable; by continually
expanding settlements even during negotiations, Israel deliberately
derails the "peace process." Thus Dayan's main argument boils down to "a
two-state solution is impossible because we are working to make it
impossible." <br />
<br />The most likely solution Palestinians will insist on once the
two-state solution is finally completely dead is a binational solution
that Dayan no doubt would like even less; after all, the hostility of
people in a position of power towards those they have wronged is a
historical constant. Israel's future as an ethnoreligious settler state
is menaced by the possibility of being surrounded by Arab governments
actually accountable to their people, a growing international movement
for boycott, sanctions, and divestment (<a href="http://bdsmovement.net/" target="_blank">bdsmovement.net</a>),
and an increasing unwillingness among young Americans to countenance
crimes they had previously been unaware of or chosen not to let notice.
Ending the occupation, dismantling the wall, allowing refugees to return
to their original homes, and allowing Palestinian citizens of Israel
equal rights would render Israel a state of all its citizens, rather
than one existing for the benefit of a minority. Such a process happened
in South Africa, and the resulting state would be on a par legally with
other developed countries. Dayan would find it difficult to accept this
"annihilation" of Israel, his real hope being that Palestinian demands
for justice continue to be ignored.<br />
<br />Dayan's claim that "security prevails," typically, ignores the
Palestinians. Palestinian children suffer double-digit percentage rates
of permanent damage due to malnutrition (<a href="http://haaretz.com/news/poll-10-of-palestinian-children-have-lasting-malnutrition-effects-1.217826" target="_blank">haaretz.com/news/poll-10-of-<wbr></wbr>palestinian-children-have-<wbr></wbr>lasting-malnutrition-effects-<wbr></wbr>1.217826</a>),
Palestinian farmers are cut off by their land by the wall,
Palestinians are imprisoned on a massive scale without charges being
brought, and their families' houses demolished as a punitive measure.
Palestinians' weekly nonviolent protests in Bil'in and Ni'lin and whose
hunger strikes in Israeli prisons are ignored by Westerners continuing
to arrogantly wonder where the "Palestinian Gandhi" is. He is in jail,
when he hasn't been assassinated. <br />
<br />Anyone interested in what conditions look like for Palestinians
forced to live with settlers should look at the caged area covered with
trash from the aggressive, military-protected settler minority in
occupied Hebron on YouTube and ask for themselves whether the situation
is morally tolerable. They should ask themselves what it would be like
if the land they lived on were colonized, its land and water resources
claimed and cut off with walls, and the remaining territory cut off by
colonist-only roads, passage being blocked by the military. They should
imagine their grandmothers being humiliated by soldiers with machine
guns and their relatives dying on the way to the hospital in ambulances
that take hours to move a few miles because the security of the illegal
colonists might be in doubt. They should consider all that Dayan and his
ilk represent and then consider Palestinian security for a change.<br />
<br /><br />Jeffrey D. Carlson,<br />Wakefield, RISave the Oocytes!http://www.blogger.com/profile/13596820141399917244noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8873121296356128711.post-70163444203125060332011-12-17T23:50:00.000-08:002011-12-17T23:53:54.762-08:00My ex-girlfriend was essentially right when she said to me something to the effect of "Why do you care so much about politics? You don't care about people!"<br />
<br />
Of course, her claims were in favor of political passivity: stop paying attention, because what you do doesn't matter; things happen, and you can't influence them. The outside world doesn't matter, so focus exclusively on your family and friends. But we know from history that people, coming together, can do incredible things. The problem is that I am not a part of humanity. I look like them, but I am not one of them. I can't take part in a movement because I can't leave the house. I can't be involved in my community because I'm not a part of it. I can't influence people because people don't care about me. There's no one even willing to talk to me.<br />
<br />
So I follow the news, not as closely as I once did, and miss out on things that are days or weeks old sometimes, and feel dumb. I post pronouncements and links and the occasional petition on Facebook in lieu of doing something else, because that is the most I can actually do. But there is no point, because no one is actually interested in what I have to say.<br />
<br />
I just fucking take up space.Save the Oocytes!http://www.blogger.com/profile/13596820141399917244noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8873121296356128711.post-13794213242120315132011-08-24T16:27:00.000-07:002011-08-24T16:41:05.354-07:00Not conversantI've have thoughts why I can't talk with others about politics when they don't already agree with me, at least partially. I find myself avoiding my friends and acquaintances Facebook updates because the liberal claptrap, the painful conventional wisdom I see there, actually <span style="font-style:italic;">irritates</span> me too much to argue rationally. It pissed me off that people I like would even consider thinking in ways that are so self-evidently misguided, it pisses me off that I live in a society that drums this shit into people's heads, and it pisses me off that I have nothing coherent I could say that would change their minds.
<br />
<br />Part of it is my inability to argue points and remember things (my memory has been failing at a remarkable rate the last two years or so), but part of it is lack of effort, a laziness, and a conviction that it will be futile whatever I do. Sometimes I assure myself all was lost before I began, and other times I kick myself for failing to argue a viewpoint that they may never hear again if I don't personally intervene. A person with opinions who doesn't act on them is worse than someone who believes nothing at all, and I am the former.
<br />
<br />And then I wonder if it's just that I'm not brave enough to pick fights with people who will think worse of me, even though it's <span style="font-style:italic;">their</span> beliefs that are ridiculous and offensive, not mine. There's certainly a level of that. Do I really want to post on my brother's friends's wall (who I don't know that well) on how Birthright is a cynical Zionist PR plot designed to force young Jews into a narrow view of their cultural identity that condones apartheid and murder? Maybe I should be that guy. I thought about it, and I guess I'm not. It looks like I'm just the guy who is very picky in choosing brands of hummus.
<br />
<br />And I wonder if such otherwise reasonable and smart people could get things so wrong, what might <span style="font-style:italic;">I</span> have wrong, having displayed lacking judgment and intelligence at so many points in my life?
<br />
<br />I am not a strong enough person to stand up for anything. Save the Oocytes!http://www.blogger.com/profile/13596820141399917244noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8873121296356128711.post-90434871121217289482011-04-25T00:39:00.000-07:002011-04-25T00:42:43.319-07:00Mini-BDSVictory for yesterday (Easter): I (seemingly successfully) warned my aunt off <a href="http://www.baceia.org/2010/12/boycott-sabratribe-guerilla-advertising-spotted-in-san-francisco/">Sabra and Tribe</a> brand hummus. I don't really know why I was so nervous before I said it. I literally summoned up my courage in order to tell her, and I'm not sure why it was necessary.<br /><br />She and her husband are born-again Christians from Catholic families. He is rather conservative, she less so. I guess I had a fear they might be Christian Zionists and I might have to face their wrath or something. So relieved.Save the Oocytes!http://www.blogger.com/profile/13596820141399917244noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8873121296356128711.post-91137264089852868712011-02-16T23:47:00.000-08:002011-02-16T23:48:13.502-08:00To letters@newsweek.comYour Feb 21 piece on the drone strikes essentially failed to question their legality or question the massive (> 32%) civilian casualties they cause. You are content to cite, unexamined, an anonymous government official's statement that they are legal. A throwaway mention of the civilian toll is postponed to the end of the article, when you've already gone on at some length at how precise, bureaucratic, advantageous, and wonderful these assassinations are. Where are the critics? Is it that hard to find the ACLU, for instance? <br /><br />Your article falls so far short of The New Yorker's articles on the same subject that it's embarrassing. I wish I could say I was surprised by this typically craven act of water-carrying for US foreign policy on the part of Newsweek. <br /><br />Jeffrey Carlson,<br />Medford MASave the Oocytes!http://www.blogger.com/profile/13596820141399917244noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8873121296356128711.post-64288176820275690782011-01-27T09:28:00.001-08:002011-01-29T13:35:21.637-08:00Comments on a professor's draft article on a math school in PakistanDear [redacted],<br /><br />Sorry I took so long on this.<blockquote>[grammar and usage comments]</blockquote>Now the important things, bearing in mind that I do not bear you any ill will...<br /><br /> p. 1<br /> first line, long spiel<br /><br />The first eight words, "A crucial ally of America's War on Terror," are an unmitigated disaster that will turn off readers far less revolutionary than me. I find myself hoping against hope that you didn't mean them in the way that I interpreted them. This phrase implies (hopefully unintentionally?) a myriad of positions which you may or may not hold, but which are at least orthogonal to, if not possibly detrimental to, the goal of the article. I will sum up my adverse reactions.<br /><br />(0) "The US" is a more neutral appelation than "America." The latter usage also seems to irritate people from other parts of North, South, and Central America.<br /><br />(1) The usage of the rhetorical framing of "War on Terror" seems to imply the following,<br />which may alienate people.<br /><br />a) The name makes sense. This is disputed. Most obviously, the name itself doesn't make sense. Terror is an emotion; quoting Jon Stewart (I think), "Yeah, and we're going to take on that bastard ennui next." So it should be short for a "war on terrorism." But terrorism is a political tactic. Paraphrasing something Lt. Gen. William Odom, US Army (Ret.) said in 2002, it makes as much sense to declare war on terrorism as to declare war on night attacks. Terrorism will exist when people are politically motivated and desperate enough. It fundamentally cannot be defeated by war.<br /><br />b) The "War on Terror" is just. The ensuing American wars (mainly Iraq and Afghanistan, but don't forget the lesser military operations and drone strikes in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia) are necessary, appropriate, and right.<br /><br />c) You are not paying close enough attention to properly genuflect to US foreign policy. The "GWOT" was Bush administration rhetoric; the Obama administration, while stepping up the wars themselves, has backed off the "War on Terror" name.<br /><br />(2) The notion that the "War on Terror" can have a "crucial ally" seems to imply an acceptance that the "War on Terror" itself (whatever it is) is crucial. This is at the very least disputable. It is correlated with, but distinct from, the following constellation of offensive beliefs.<br /><br />(a) The "War on Terror" is honest, in that it is about what it claims to be about, the safety of US residents (or at least citizens). You may recall that in 2002-3, the government cycled through a half-dozen different justifications for the incipient invasion of Iraq. It was like Whac-A-Mole, except everyone already knew the moles would win. The arguments that it would increase safety of US citizens were quickly defeated, so the Bush administration came up with new ones.<br /><br />(b) The "War on Terror" has been or will be successful in its alleged goal of making US (and world?) residents safer. This is pretty objectively false, even discounting the death toll in the armed forces from the wars themselves. <a href=http://www.google.com/search?q=war%20%22less%20safe%22>Many people agree</a> with me on this, including people as radical as <a href=http://articles.cnn.com/2004-12-05/us/musharraf.cnn_1_pakistani-leader-pervez-musharraf-india-and-pakistan>Pervez Musharraf</a> and <a href=http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/britain-less-safe-because-of-iraq-war-says-cameron-429223.html>David Cameron</a>.<br /><br />(c) If the real goals of "War on Terror" differ from the stated ones, they are still justified in some way. Many people wildly disagree with this, certainly as it applies to the actual wars that have ensued. It doesn't take a deeply cynical person to see in these wars, say, a doomed empire fighting for resources, providing justification for its vast weapons expenditures, shoring up its economy with military Keynesianism, or just flexing its muscle to show people who's boss. Again, America's wars are just.<br /><br />(3) The notion that Pakistan *is* a crucial ally seems to imply that Pakistan's government is correct in embracing US foreign policy, either because the US's goals are noble, or because supporting these policies are good in some way for Pakistan, rather than extremely risky. This is again very contentious, in and out of Pakistan.<br /><br />(4) The citing of Pakistan as a crucial ally in the very first line implies that Pakistan's importance, if any, is due to its relationship with the US. I can see that offending people.<br /><br />Even if you accept any of these abominable positions, I think including them in the first line of your paper is probably not a good idea.<br /><br /> par. 2, line 1<br />Was it the empires that made it glorious? The Raj?<br /><br />What is "glory" anyway? Was ancient Athens glorious? It had a burgeoning literary, philosophical, and mathematical culture; it had democracy for property owners; it also fought wars of conquest against its neighboring city-states, and between two-fifths and four-fifths of its inhabitants were slaves. Was the Roman Republic glorious, then? The Roman Empire? Han Dynasty China? The Xiong-nu? The Huns? The Mongol Empire? Considerations of "glory" of a country, and especially of an empire, tend to not consider the condition of the majority of people who have to live there. To me, there is nothing glorious about conquering people and demanding their submission, and that puts my damper on my considering most political entities "glorious."<br /><br /> par. 2, line 2<br />Before the British occupation, I don't know if the subcontinent was ever under the control of a single political entity at any time. The "succession of ancient empires" line seems to imply that India progressed monotonically from empire to empire, rather than frequently being divided between different empires and numerous small states.<br /><br /> par. 2, line 3<br />If you're playing up Pakistan's plight, then since you mention Partition, you could mention that it cost millions of lives.<br /><br />...<br /><br /> col. 2, line 7<br />This is not as surprising as it may seem; compare the situation in Iran, where most college students are women. (See, e.g. <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5359672.stm">this</a>.)<br /><br /> col. 2, line -12<br />I couldn't find a homepage (in English, at least) for this institution on the Internet. Are you sure it's the right name? Either way, I think it's a bad idea to call it the ISI: to most people with a passing familiarity with Pakistan, that's the Inter-Services Intelligence. Also, you never mention it again, so including an acronym doesn't really help.<br /><br /> p. 3<br /> line 5<br />An "important societal need"? I am all for mathematics, but I am not sure that it is. As you yourself say in the next paragraph, "it is difficult to make a case for theoretical mathematics when millions of people, displaced from their homes, lack food, clean water, and medical care."<br />Apparently ASSMS graduates are eminently employable, but that's not necessarily the same thing as being useful. Consider the article you sent me about investment bankers. I'm forced to agree with G. H. Hardy that one of the best things pure mathematics may have going for it is that it is at least mostly harmeless.<br /><br />In recent years I've come to view colleges, certainly in the US, as essentially a credentialing industry. The teaching part of college isn't concerned mostly with educating people per se, but with making money, and societally, as a way of creaing technical workers, propagating a managerial and/or middle class, and providing a means of rationing out jobs to people who college somehow "qualifies." I am all for the pursuit of knowledge and wish I could consider myself an intellectual, but that is not the primary reason why institutions of higher education exist, at least in the US. I hope the ASSMS graduates are serving a more important societal need than I anticipate myself filling.<br /><br /> last paragraph, first sentence<br />This is overly broad. Terrorism usually isn't a consequence strictly of misery per se; there have been plenty of times and places where most of the population lived in misery but terrorism did not thrive. Secondly, laws in and of themselves do not stop misery, and lawlessness doesn't necessarily arise therefrom. Consider police states, where misery can abound without much lawlessness seemingly being able to occur.<br /><br />Secondly, this line seems to be trying to tie in the ASSMS with counter-terrorism in order to solicit aid. I am not sure this is a safe bet; I think it seems rather tenuous, and doesn't tie in well to the preceding paragraph.<br /><br />Finally, citing "lawlessness" as a scourge in the same breath with terrorism strikes me as comical. I thought of both Han Fei and Polyanna. Then I thought of how the Chinese Communist Party is still referred to as "bandits" in Taiwan. Apparently their repressive state bureaucracy is on a par with highwaymen ambushing travellers, stealing their money, and fleeing into the mountains. I've thought of this as a holdover from the pre-1949 era, but it seems like it also reflects a mindset where illegality is an insult, to be applied to anyone you disagree with.<br /><br />I don't know if this is a residue of some Legalism you acquired culturally or through education, or something else, but I don't think it's right. Laws don't make people good, and I don't think that a lawless society is necessarily a miserable one. I think people have the capacity to regulate their own behavior, and while I'm not against the law per se, I think it's a mistake to fetishize it. One must keep in mind that people create the law, and often people who derive a definite advantage from it. At its best it outlines a population's notion of justice, but more often it is used to make one group serve another.<br /><br /> last paragraph, second sentence<br />My personal view reverses the clause order: While the development of mathematics is a step in the right direction, it cannot be expected to solve any of the ills of a society.<br /><br />That's it for the proofreading.<br /><br />Finally, I'd like to talk about the book. When I gave it to you, I suspected it might not be your cup of tea. You asked me with concern, after having looked at it briefly, whether Tariq Ali could be relied upon to be objective. My answer is no, of course not, and neither can anybody else. I think writing objectively about history or politics is impossible, and claiming to do so is dishonest to both writer and reader.<br /><br />So when people refer to a piece of writing as objective, I think they actually mean something else. Namely, there is a "safe" range of discourse in any society containing views that can be considered "objective," and opinions outside of that range are considered to fail that objectivity test. American newspapers and television offer brilliant examples of this, but I know the same is true of the UK and I believe it is universal. But there's nothing more inherently true in the statements of someone who attempts to be middle-of-the-road or to hide their own opinions in their writing. It's just perceived to be that way because those views are socially acceptable. There are any number of instances of actual falsehood being common knowledge in a society. I much prefer candor, people who let you know their agenda before they begin. In giving you that book on Pakistan, I hoped, probably naively, to provide you a different point of view.<br /><br /><br />Best,<br />jeffSave the Oocytes!http://www.blogger.com/profile/13596820141399917244noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8873121296356128711.post-56159609967087430612010-12-12T18:46:00.000-08:002010-12-12T18:49:20.940-08:00The Battle of AlgiersI just watched <i>The Battle of Algiers</i> with my mother. After it ended, I asked her what she thought. <br /><br />"Do you just try to pick the longest movies?"<br /><br />"It was two fucking hours!"<br /><br />"God, it seemed a lot longer!"<br /><br />Here I'm trying to watch classic movies, and all I hear is that they're long. Even when they're not. Given, my appreciation of everything is limited, but at least my philistinism isn't intentional.Save the Oocytes!http://www.blogger.com/profile/13596820141399917244noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8873121296356128711.post-91717112882586954932010-12-06T20:28:00.000-08:002010-12-06T20:34:24.765-08:00Confronting hopeless inadequacyWhen I read <a href="http://leninology.blogspot.com/">lenin</a> or <a href="http://thisislikesogay.blogspot.com/2008/09/comforting-fables-for-atheists.html">Duncan Mitchel</a> or any of the people I cited in the series about people I am inferior to on the DepressionJournal, I am always struck by the vast amount I don't know because I haven't read the relevant things. But my comprehension is shoddy, too, so that when I did read Tariq Ali's <cite>The Clash of Fundamentalisms</cite> or William Blum's <cite>Killing Hope</cite>, I retained almost none of it. So I prove incapable of bettering myself. This constant rediscovery of my own inferiority is wearying and maddening, and another of the things that makes me want to check out early.<br /><br />I don't seem to be able to keep up with my blogroll every day, let alone the hundreds of books I've put on my list of things to read. On my hard drive I also have at least a half-dozen PDFs of books I'd hoped to read, but I'm still trying to follow the news and opinions of today. So I will never progress in knowledge — as if I retained any of it anyway.<br /><br />The other thing I've noticed about myself is my orthodoxy. Since I have no self-esteem, I am constantly questioning my own opinions. And where that may lead some people to improved opinions, it leads me nowhere. Because I'm not confident to come up with my own opinions on things anymore; I've been wrong so often in the past about so many things that I don't have faith in my own reactions. Best to see what someone on my blogroll says first. I'm perpetually stymied by the belief that I'm missing something that other people are seeing, that I'm making some elementary mistake that makes me wrong <em>vis-à-vis</em> my own beliefs. I first noticed this in blog comments, when my statements were always simplistic things about two sentences long that added very little to wide-ranging discussions that sometimes were quite valuable. This feeling has leeched from politics into (what's left of) the rest of my life as well. I don't know what can be done about it; it seems to just be part of the familiar downward spiral.Save the Oocytes!http://www.blogger.com/profile/13596820141399917244noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8873121296356128711.post-84176124471250326932010-11-30T20:59:00.000-08:002010-11-30T21:46:58.017-08:00Too dumbI don't get <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/anis-shivani/pessimism-porn-chris-hedges_b_788504.html">this</a> criticism of Chris Hedges and his newest book. It was cited in comments <a href="http://www.distantocean.com/2010/11/buttercup-is-a-total-feldspar.html?cid=6a00d834200af253ef0134898ee714970c#comment-6a00d834200af253ef0134898ee714970c">here</a>, and John Caruso replied that it was basically self-refuting, referring to the criticism, I think. But when Shivani cites twenty-odd philosophers and cultural critics of the mid-20th century in arguing that Hedges' argument is half a century old, I don't know enough to keep up, so I sort of half-nod and don't know what he means.<div><br /></div><div>I go into it assuming Shivani, like <a href="http://stopmebeforeivoteagain.org/2010/10/trahison_des_clercs.html">this critique</a> from SMBIVA, is attacking Hedges, one of the few public liberals I actually like, from the left. Indeed, he hits the essential incoherence of the "liberal class" idea, and attacks the idea that at some point, this agglomeration was a responsible part of the citizenry, on the side of the working class, not crackpot realists for endless war, or something. But he goes off twice on Hedges for not supporting globalization, which he maintains is vastly improving the economic situation of South to East Asia. And suddenly I have to recalibrate my conceptual apparatus (where I handily box in commentators because classifying things is great). Shivani claims globalization and the theory of comparative advantage as one of the great victories of liberalism, and I realize two things (or think I do).</div><div><br /></div><div>1. Shivani is here using "liberal" in the original sense, still prevalent outside the US, not the sense of "social democracy."</div><div><br /></div><div>2. Shivani is not the socialist I expected, but a social democrat of some stripe with an unusual faith in the efficacy and justice of the "free market."</div><div><br /></div><div>To me, globalization has resulted in convenient new ways to distribute wealth upward, and contributed to the exploitation of workers on six continents. I would expect that the evidence he would adduce for the beneficial effects of neoliberalism would not actually establish a causal connection — some of most of the advances in the standard of living would be in spite of, not because of, capitalism. He advocates "the free movement of capital and people," but in reality, it is only the capital that moves freely; the people cannot. To me, this part of "globalization" is a lie. And my understanding is that many economies, notably South Korea's and that of the US, were built up by protectionism. </div><div><br /></div><div>But I am not convinced that I could defend these views of mine at any greater length than I just have. I could not give an opinion on whether Hedges has gotten it utterly wrong about American art. Nor could I say in what way Hedges' views follow those of the people Shivani claims in various parts of the article: <blockquote>Reinhold Niebuhr, Theodor Adorno, Hannah Arendt, Walter Benjamin, Umberto Eco, Neal Gabler, Aldous Huxley, Walter Lippmann, C. Wright Mills, Ortega y Gassett, George Orwell, Neil Postman, David Riesman, William H. Whyte, Noam Chomsky, Sheldon Wolin, Dennis Kucinich, Edward Bernays, Dwight MacDonald, James Howard Kunstler, Nouriel Roubini, Naomi Klein, Paul Krugman, Jared Diamond, Malthus, Neal Gabler, Russell Jacoby, Mark Helprin, Jaron Lanier, and Arthur Schlesinger.</blockquote> In short, I know nothing and rely on others to provide me my opinions. </div><div><br /></div><div>Surprisingly, Shivani thinks that Hedges' views should instead be informed by Immanuel Wallerstein, Tzvetan Todorov, David Harvey, Ulrich Beck, or Slavoj Žižek," at least three of whom I know to be Marxists, and assume not to be huge fans of globalization. Finally, I admit that I don't know where this author is coming from, nor can I debate him. I can merely, stubbornly and without justification, disagree.<br /></div>Save the Oocytes!http://www.blogger.com/profile/13596820141399917244noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8873121296356128711.post-52462928582050430262010-11-30T20:19:00.001-08:002010-11-30T20:22:22.220-08:00Letting down the beleaguered people of El Salvador<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica; font-size: small; "><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica; font-size: small; ">Two emails, to and from, cross-posted from my DepressionJournal, telling part of the story of my failure. I spent a long time on the email, debating what was or wasn't TMI and did or didn't make me sound like a PoS, but I never got a response, so I assume I came off as vapid, self-pitying, and useless as I feel. I really didn't deserve a response, and I respect the decision not to reply.</span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica; font-size: small; "><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica; font-size: small; "><hr /><br />Hey Jeff,<br /><br />How are you doing? Great to meet you at the action with Miguel Rivera. I just wanted to give you a reminder about the El Salvador movie night that we're having tonight at Encuentro 5 - it's from 7-9pm, and if you're on facebook the invite is here: [omitted]<br /><br />If you can't make it, would you be interested in having coffee and talking more about our anti-mining/anti-CAFTA (Central America Free Trade Agreement) campaign? We've got some cool stuff coming up - we're targeting shareholders of Pacific Rim Mining, trying to get meeting with Rep. McGovern to ask him to sponsor a letter about renegotiating free trade agreements, and planning a party next month to celebrate CISPES' 30th anniversary. Would you be interested in getting involved in any of those things in particular?<br /><br />Take care & hope to talk to you soon,<br />[redacted]</span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica; font-size: small; "><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica; font-size: small; "><hr /></span></div>Hey [redacted],<br /><br />Thanks for remembering me! It was nice to meet you too.<br /><br />I'm in Rhode Island now, probably until next year; I've gone on medical leave from grad school due to severe depression... part of which is a crippling doubt about my own abilities that makes me think I can't contribute to causes or society in any meaningful way. That in turn makes me feel very guilty, because I've become aware of vast injustices but don't feel able to help combat them.<br /><br />(That's probably too much information, but I feel like it's fair warning.)<br /><br />Anyway, I'm unsure how much or what I can do (I'm trained in math, so I don't have many real-world skills), but I *would* like to help in any way I can.<br /><br /><br />Take care,<br />jeff<br /></span>Save the Oocytes!http://www.blogger.com/profile/13596820141399917244noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8873121296356128711.post-26208380786527357882010-11-30T20:07:00.001-08:002010-11-30T20:18:30.411-08:00News breakI took a three-weak break from reading the news, and it made me feel like a self-centered asshole out of touch with the world. Not coincidentally, that's what I felt like before the news break, but the feeling worsened. The problem, or at least part of it, is that I used to read my blogs for several hours a day, four or more, and finish the day with ten tabs open I promised to myself I would read the next day. And this would repeat for weeks. And Firefox would crash, and I would archive those links and feel guilty I wasn't able to read more, and feel terribly stupid and ignorant. <div><br /></div><div>I'm typing this in Safari, because if I try to restore my Firefox session my computer will hang and I'll just have to force quit it, but I'm not ready to give up on those articles and admit I'll never read them. I don't understand how other people do it. What it is it they have that I don't, and how can I get it? The depth of understanding the bloggers I read seem to exhibit is something I lack, and my incapacity pains me. Part of the point of this blog was to be proactive about it. But I can't think for myself or remember what I read.</div><div><div><br /></div><div>I would like to be the sort of person who convinces other people of my views, and thereby makes the world a better place, sort of, but it turns out I'm bad at that. I tried that on Facebook, and I just wound up tired and frustrated, leaving many comments unanswered, feeling that the people I was responding to were making fundamental, simple mistakes, but not calling them on it because every time they answered, I felt like I had to answer again, and there was another hour gone when I tried to assemble my thoughts into coherent form. And I realized, yes, that's the nature of political debate, but I'm not up for it.</div><div><br /></div><div>In summary, I am not the kind of person I want to be.</div><div><br /></div><div>I also would like to be the sort of person who reads a lot of books, Chomsky and Bakunin and Shakespeare and Virgil and and and and... and learns a lot (retention is a problem), but my news hobby was such that it was all I was doing. Yet I was still behind, never able to catch up with the events of the day.</div></div><div><br /></div><div>And ultimately, the point wouldn't be to analyze the news, but to do something about it, and there I've fallen far shorter than anywhere else. I cannot contribute to society in any way.</div>Save the Oocytes!http://www.blogger.com/profile/13596820141399917244noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8873121296356128711.post-60835833173866365392010-11-30T20:00:00.000-08:002010-11-30T20:06:57.823-08:00My problem<a href="http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/2010/11/on-wikileaks-you-force-me-to-repeat.html">Arthur</a> summarizes my problem well here, not with reference to me, in addressing people's concerns about WikiLeaks. Briefly, the post he is responding to worries that WikiLeaks could be used by the State Department, etc., to leak information, true or false, supporting USGov policies. Arthur's response is that the point of WikiLeaks is to put the choice into each of our hands, to make the information available to every one of us and make us the ultimate arbiters of its meaning. In other words, it's a democratizing force that destroys appeals to authority by vesting authority in all of us. <div><br /></div><div>And as a libertarian socialist, I think that's great, however I've come to believe I'm incapable of making my own decisions and need some sort of external authority. I've definitely made some choices in what kind of arguments appeal to me and what kind of ideals are important, but in the end, I feel like I'm always agreeing with someone else's argument, not making my own. I started really noticing this with respect to politics in 2008, and that's part of the reason why I erected this (failed) blog. The effort hasn't been successful; instead I've become ever more reliant on authority, at least the kind that agrees with me, and unable to think for myself. I don't have the time or the energy to go through the latest WikiLeaks dumps or any of so many other things I would have liked to have done. I can't rely on my own judgment, because frankly I suck.</div>Save the Oocytes!http://www.blogger.com/profile/13596820141399917244noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8873121296356128711.post-9273230948467229642010-11-30T19:07:00.000-08:002010-11-30T19:14:52.758-08:00Letters to and from my CongressmanSending an email to a Congressman is like spitting in the wind... or something, but here goes. <div><hr /></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: medium; "><blockquote type="cite">Dear Jeffrey:<br /><br />Thank you for contacting me regarding Israel and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I appreciate your sharing your thoughts with me. <br /><br />Congress, President Obama, and U.S. diplomats continue to work towards peace and stability between Israelis and Palestinians. I believe negotiations are necessary for comprehensive peace and our own national security. I support the principles of the Oslo Accords and the "road map" for peace. I applaud the President and Secretary Clinton's efforts to continue talks. I am confident that negotiations can lead to the parties agreeing on an outcome that reconciles the Palestinian goal of an independent state, and the Israeli goal of a Jewish state with secure and recognized borders.<br /><br />I believe that the United States needs to continue to support Israel as an international ally. The Administration has requested $3 billion in Foreign Military Financing for Israel for next year, an increase from $2.22 billion in the previous year. I voted for this financing and plan to continue supporting Israel's ability to defend itself.<br /><br />The security of Israel and the entire international community are endangered by Iran's nuclear proliferation threats. The Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act, H.R. 2194, imposed sanctions to put pressure on Iran to comply with international regulations regarding its nuclear program. I voted in favor of this bill on the House floor on June 24, 2010, where it passed 408 – 8. President Obama signed this legislation into law on July 1, 2010.<br /><br />I chose not to sign onto House Resolution 1553, which expresses support for Israel to use any means necessary to confront and eliminate nuclear threats posed by Iran. This resolution was introduced to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs on July 22, 2010. Like all nations, Israel has the right to defend its sovereignty, but I was concerned that this resolution might encourage Israel to pursue a more military policy with respect to Iran which could lead to even greater instability in the region.<br />On May 31, 2010, a flotilla attempted to break the Israeli and Egyptian blockade to Gaza. This blockade prevents terrorists from bringing weapons into Gaza. Israel has been unfairly condemned as the aggressor in this incident. I signed the Poe-Peters letter sent to President Obama on June 29, 2010. This letter expressed support for Israel's right to stop the importation of weapons and other materials that can be used to launch attacks against its citizens.<br /><br />Since 2009, President Obama has called on Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu to halt the expansion of settlements in the Palestinian territories. As both a strong supporter of Israel and a champion of human rights all around the world, I find these settlements to be a particularly important issue. I know that a compromise between the Israeli and Palestinian governments on the issue of settlements is necessary for stability in the region. As a longstanding and committed friend to Israel, I believe that a compromise on this issue is necessary to resolve the ongoing conflict.<br /><br />I wish nothing more than to see Israelis and Palestinians living together peacefully. With the United States once again playing a strong and active role to building peace, under the leadership of President Obama, we have an opportunity to create a lasting peace in the region to which all parties can agree.<br /><br />Thank you again for sharing your views with me. Please feel free to contact me again on this or any other issue. If you would like to receive periodic policy updates, please signup for my e-newsletter at http://markey.house.gov/signup.<br /><br /><br /><br />Sincerely,<br /><br />Ed Markey<br />Member of Congress</blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><hr /></blockquote></span></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: medium; ">Representative Markey,</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: medium; "><br /></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: medium; "><br /></span><blockquote type="cite" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: medium; ">Congress, President Obama, and U.S. diplomats continue to work towards peace and stability between Israelis and Palestinians. </blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: medium; ">Just like they've been working on it for twenty years, with billions of dollars of financial aid and fighter jets to one side, in exchange for a temporary freeze in settlement building in East Jerusalem.</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: medium; "><br /></span><blockquote type="cite" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: medium; ">I believe negotiations are necessary for comprehensive peace and our own national security.</blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: medium; ">The security of the U.S is not and has never been at issue.</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: medium; "><br /></span><blockquote type="cite" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: medium; "> I support the principles of the Oslo Accords and the "road map" for peace.</blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: medium; ">The Oslo Accords aren't principled, and the "road map" was a publicity ploy. The land grab goes on, as new "reality on the ground" is achieved.</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: medium; "><br /></span><blockquote type="cite" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: medium; ">I am confident that negotiations can lead to the parties agreeing on an outcome that reconciles the Palestinian goal of an independent state, </blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: medium; ">What has ever happened in the past that would make you confident of such a thing?</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: medium; "><br /></span><blockquote type="cite" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: medium; ">and the Israeli goal of a Jewish state with secure and recognized borders. </blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: medium; ">A Jewish state is one with Ashkenazi ethnic supremacy, and a "Jewish and democratic" state is a transparent oxymoron. A multiethnic state designed for the benefit of one of its constituent ethnic groups (now complete with loyalty oath) will always be racist. Zionism is racism.</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: medium; "><br /></span><blockquote type="cite" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: medium; "> I believe that the United States needs to continue to support Israel as an international ally.</blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: medium; ">Or what? Will it be driven into the sea?</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: medium; "><br /></span><blockquote type="cite" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: medium; ">The Administration has requested $3 billion in Foreign Military Financing for Israel for next year, an increase from $2.22 billion in the previous year. I voted for this financing and plan to continue supporting Israel's ability to defend itself. </blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: medium; ">Poor little Israel, unable to defend herself without billions of dollars of aid. That's what all the wars have shown, is it? Is that what the bombardment of Gaza in January of 2009 that killed hundreds of civilians showed? The 2006 war on Lebanon? Is there anything so disgusting Israel's military could do that you wouldn't see fit to finance it?</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: medium; "><br /></span><blockquote type="cite" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: medium; ">The security of Israel and the entire international community are endangered by Iran's nuclear proliferation threats.</blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: medium; ">The 2007 National Intelligence Estimate found no evidence that Iran was pursuing nuclear weapons. Despite politicians having found it inconvenient, no evidence has been produced superseding its judgment.</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: medium; "><br /></span><blockquote type="cite" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: medium; ">The Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act, H.R. 2194, imposed sanctions to put pressure on Iran to comply with international regulations regarding its nuclear program. I voted in favor of this bill on the House floor on June 24, 2010, where it passed 408 – 8. President Obama signed this legislation into law on July 1, 2010.</blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: medium; ">Iran has the right to peaceful use of nuclear energy under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty, which it has signed, unlike India, Pakistan, and Israel. But we don't hear about the danger their nuclear arsenals pose, or, of course, that of the US. I don't want anyone to have nuclear weapons, but the only thing specifically unacceptable about Iran having them is that they are an Official Enemy of the U.S. and Israel. We give the Iranians nothing but incentives to gain nuclear weapons. On the "Axis of Evil," simply compare North Korea to Iraq.</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: medium; "><br /></span><blockquote type="cite" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: medium; ">On May 31, 2010, a flotilla attempted to break the Israeli and Egyptian blockade to Gaza. This blockade prevents terrorists from bringing weapons into Gaza. </blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: medium; ">The blockade prevents building material and various arbitrarily-chosen food items from entering. Dov Weisglass said its mission was to put the Palestinians "on a diet," and the result has been an epidemic of malnutrition.</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: medium; "><br /></span><blockquote type="cite" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: medium; ">Israel has been unfairly condemned as the aggressor in this incident. </blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: medium; ">Yes, because commandoes with guns rappelling down via helicopter onto a ship bearing aid isn't aggressive. Because shooting people, in the back in many cases, isn't aggressive. Murdering nine people armed with found poles and utility knives isn't aggressive. And because deliberately starving a captive civilian population isn't aggressive.</span><div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: medium; "><blockquote type="cite">I signed the Poe-Peters letter sent to President Obama on June 29, 2010. This letter expressed support for Israel's right to stop the importation of weapons and other materials that can be used to launch attacks against its citizens.</blockquote>Yes, like concrete, tomatoes, and coriander. See <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7545636.stm>, for example. How can anyone call that defensive?</div><div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: medium; "><blockquote type="cite">Since 2009, President Obama has called on Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu to halt the expansion of settlements in the Palestinian territories. </blockquote>Obama has genuflected to Netanyahu at every turn and Netanyahu has thumbed his nose at him, Biden, and the world. The rest of the world watches in horror the crimes you glibly justify.<br /><blockquote type="cite">As both a strong supporter of Israel and a champion of human rights all around the world,</blockquote>There is no such thing. A strong supporter of Israeli policy is a champion of apartheid, dispossession, racism, and seemingly endless cruelty. A supporter of the Israeli people, on the other hand, wouldn't make excuses for the behavior that makes their state an insane pariah state.<br /><blockquote type="cite"> I find these settlements to be a particularly important issue. I know that a compromise between the Israeli and Palestinian governments on the issue of settlements is necessary for stability in the region. </blockquote>The settlements are illegal under international law. They always have been. They are built on occupied territory, stolen from the people who were already dispossessed during the Nakba. The settlers are bigots with a messianic streak, often violent who throw their garbage down on the people whose villages they occupy, who are protected by the military of a country that officially disavows any responsibility for their actions, who are given their own special roads in occupied territory that they have colonized. A compromise is indefensible.<br /><blockquote type="cite">As a longstanding and committed friend to Israel, I believe that a compromise on this issue is necessary to resolve the ongoing conflict. </blockquote>In this very statement, you name one party as a friend, and neglect to mention the other. Inevitably, the party you are not a committed and longstanding friend of will be called on to compromise what little they have left.<br /><blockquote type="cite"> I wish nothing more than to see Israelis and Palestinians living together peacefully. </blockquote>From what you've said above, you wish for nothing more than the status quo.<br /><blockquote type="cite">With the United States once again playing a strong and active role to building peace,</blockquote>This is a delusion or a lie. Obama is no better than Bush in this regard. If America wanted peace, there would be peace by now.<br /><blockquote type="cite">under the leadership of President Obama, we have an opportunity to create a lasting peace in the region to which all parties can agree.</blockquote>We honestly could, if the US wanted it.<br /><br />I find this letter very disappointing.<br /><br /><br />Jeffrey Carlson<br /></div></div>Save the Oocytes!http://www.blogger.com/profile/13596820141399917244noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8873121296356128711.post-72228199728893347342010-10-11T17:04:00.000-07:002010-10-11T17:05:30.783-07:00A kindler, gentler killing program<h6 class="uiStreamMessage">Liberal thought on government assassination programs: they need to be somewhat better regulated. Luckily, the only abuses so far have been unserious.<br /><br /><a href="http://whateveritisimagainstit.blogspot.com/2010/10/ending-assassination-abuse-without.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><span>http://whateveritisimagainstit</span><span class="word_break"></span><span>.blogspot.com/2010/10/ending-a</span><span class="word_break"></span><span>ssassination-abuse-without.htm</span><span class="word_break"></span>l</a></h6>Save the Oocytes!http://www.blogger.com/profile/13596820141399917244noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8873121296356128711.post-38699813445732355592010-10-07T20:24:00.000-07:002010-10-07T20:25:49.047-07:00Email response to the last entryI think I already got this message once, somehow.<br /><br />My intention is not to be harsh, but I'm going to go ahead with a screed (and in the process tell you how to do your job).<br /><br />Aerial surveillance technology, in the hands of the US government, is not likely to have peaceful applications--insofar as the explicitly claimed goal of "preventing the spread and/or use of weapons of mass destruction" has ever been pursued by peaceful means. They have a proven track record on "WMD" that includes very little honesty. Realistically, I think it's more likely be used with the Predator drones. The handout talks about using your neurons to solve way cool problems rather than the strategic value of bombing Afghan wedding parties (and oh, how patronizingly written it is), but then they probably don't want to narrow the applicant pool to outright sociopaths.<br /><br />You should know that you aren't absolutely obligated to pass this sort of thing on. On the one hand, it certainly is a job opportunity for students, but that must be balanced against the greater good. I'm sure there's no shortage of amoral technical minds clambering for the opportunity, but every person counts. That is, every person we can get not to do this work counts. The fewer bright young minds there are working on helping the gentle men and women of our government with their aerial surveillance, the safer we all are (the more so if we have the misfortune to live in what's left of central Asia).<br /><br />I'm conflicted about sending this, but I'm doing it, in the hopes that not keeping my opinions to myself will in this instance be appreciated.<br /><br /><br />Best,<br />jeffSave the Oocytes!http://www.blogger.com/profile/13596820141399917244noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8873121296356128711.post-79807822670812830692010-10-07T19:39:00.001-07:002010-10-07T19:44:14.996-07:00Jesus Christ: forwarded to me from our chairA recruiting letter from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory to all the students in my department...<br /><br /><hr /><br /><br />Warning: This opportunity is not for everyone, but rather focused on passionate, super-smart computer scientists looking to solve massive and challenging problems. Problems both technical in nature and global in scope. Still interested?<br />If “Yes” then ask yourself these questions, then keep reading:<br />Are you an expert in video imaging? Would you rather think about applications for digital signal processes than watch the clock tick? Are you able to make high-performance code? If so we'd like to talk to you about an opportunity in Silicon Valley - and relocation is available if you're the right fit.<br />The Global Security Computing Applications Division provides computing expertise and technology to aid in preventing the spread and/or use of weapons of mass destruction. We also provide high-quality information system solutions that contribute to prevention, detection, and response with respect to the capabilities and intentions of potential proliferators.<br />The Mission: If you Choose to Engage<br />The Global Security Computing Applications Division within the Computing Applications and Research Department has openings for computer scientists to work on the Embedded Computing Program’s “Persistics” project team to develop algorithms and software tools for their scalable aerial surveillance video processing pipeline.<br />What is the Persistics Program All About?<br />It is a collaborative effort involving multiple Department of Defense partners that leverages the brightest minds in research to solve problems and put research into practice. Some of the areas you will explore include advanced image stabilization, high fidelity moving object segmentation, representation and compression, and efficient large format data processing utilizing the most advanced techniques in efficient out-of-core stream based computation.<br />If you are added to the team, you will develop expertise with respect to heterogeneous multi-core processing on Graphics Processing Unit (GPU) and cell-based clusters. Sounds cool, right? It is, and it will support your interest in harnessing your brainpower to leave your legacy and make the planet safer. Expect to work closely with external research and engineering teams; internal interactions will be with team members, peers, project leadership, and program management, and more as this is not to a role involving confinement to a cubicle.<br />That said, there will be plenty of time to work independently, solve complex issues people have not even identified yet.<br />What We Expect:<br />The ability to design, implement, and deploy prototype systems that demonstrate the application of the Scalable Persistent Surveillance processing pipeline to problems of Laboratory interest. It’s hard to believe we would actually pay you for this, right? Then again you didn’t get your MS or PhD to not execute. Remain current on the state of the art in image and video processing, 3D extraction from video, Geospatial Validation and Verification, out-of-core stream-based computation, and heterogeneous multi-core processing. Present detailed analyses of pipeline performance relative to final data products and processing both within LLNL and to external communities. Transition prototypes to use in customer applications in collaboration with the customers.<br />Perform all assignments in accordance with ES&H, Security, and business practice requirements and policies.<br />Skills We Need to Tap Into in Addition to your Raw Brainpower (I bet your brain synapses are firing like crazy)<br />B.S. in Computer Science, Engineering, or Mathematics, or equivalent level of demonstrated knowledge. Experience in algorithm development for signal, image, and video processing applications. Familiarity with developing software applications in Linux, UNIX, and Windows environments. Experience with distributed and parallel computing.<br />Experience developing and documenting software designs, implement code, develop and document test plans, and disseminate results. Familiarity Knowledge of a wide variety of programming languages such as C++, C, Python, Lua, Matlab, IDL, and Perl.<br />Effective verbal and written communication skills along with strong analytical, organizational, and interpersonal skills. Demonstrated ability to work independently and implement research concepts in a multi- disciplinary team environment, where commitments and deadlines are important to project success.<br />Demonstrated ability to effectively communicate technical information, document work, and prepare and present research papers.<br />The Following would be really nice:<br />M.S./Ph.D. in Computer Science, Engineering, Mathematics, or related discipline. Familiarity with 3D extraction from video, optical flow and object motion tracking, wavelet compression and entropy coding, progressive hierarchy data layout and out-of-core stream processing, heterogeneous multi-core processing, machine learning, machine vision, and<br />computational statistics. Visualization experience for large-scale imagery.<br />Real-time image processing experience. Experience programming on commodity architectures such as GPUs or Cell Broadband Engines (CBE).<br />Experience working with customers to define, refine, and implement programmatic requirements and milestones. - Experience developing complex software solutions. - Experience with Systems Engineering.<br />- Familiarity with data management systems. - Ability to travel to sponsor sites.<br />SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS: Pre-Placement Medical Exam: A job-related pre-placement medical examination may be required. Pre-Employment Drug Test: External applicant(s) selected for this position will be required to pass a post-offer, pre-employment drug test. Anticipated Clearance Level: Q, SCI. (Position will be cleared to this level). Applicants selected will be subject to a federal background investigation and must meet eligibility requirements for access to classified information or matter. In addition, all L or Q cleared employees are subject to random drug testing.<br />LLNL offers a challenging environment and a competitive salary/benefits package. To view and apply for this job, go to https://careers.llnl.gov and search by job #009365. When applying and prompted please mention where you saw this ad. LLNL is operated by the Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC, for the U.S. Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration. We are proud to be an equal opportunity employer with a commitment to workforce diversity.Save the Oocytes!http://www.blogger.com/profile/13596820141399917244noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8873121296356128711.post-3656599331048615492010-10-06T17:30:00.000-07:002010-10-06T19:32:43.791-07:00CelebrationThere was a poster up in the student coffee house for an event showing a 1950s propaganda film about the great heroism of Israeli fighters in 1948. I scrawled "ETHNIC CLEANSING HURRAY!" on it.Save the Oocytes!http://www.blogger.com/profile/13596820141399917244noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8873121296356128711.post-7056742483699166402010-10-03T15:57:00.000-07:002010-10-03T15:59:32.084-07:00Bus FAIL"Due to circumstances beyond the control of the sponsoring organizations (1199/SEIU, NAACP, Jobs With Justice and others) most of the 72 buses scheduled to go to Washington were not able to go. The bus company canceled buses just as we were scheduled to leave. We have had buses break down, not show etc, but never have we seen this happened to us on such a large scale. Still, more than 1,500 people from Massachusetts were able to attend the historic rally of which we will have more news soon. We apologize for any inconvenience and will be pursuing action against the bus company."Save the Oocytes!http://www.blogger.com/profile/13596820141399917244noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8873121296356128711.post-25974195256836564092010-10-01T17:03:00.000-07:002010-10-01T17:15:25.131-07:00An impressive new low<a href="http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/09/25/secrecy/index.html">Obama</a> asks the court to dismiss a lawsuit by Anwar al-Awlaki's father enjoining the government not to assassinate his son, on the grounds that the assassination program constitutes a "state secret." So not only can the government declare it is going to murder you, they want it to be impossible to review the reasons why they want to kill you. "If the President does it, it's legal." I wish I could say this was shocking in some way, but it's just what I've come to expect from Obama, a ratcheting up of the unaccountable power that Bush wanted. You have to imagine Bush being envious, thinking "I wish I could have thought of that." But only a Democrat could get away with it with so little complaint. It's as if people think that if Obama wants to kill you, you really must deserve to die.Save the Oocytes!http://www.blogger.com/profile/13596820141399917244noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8873121296356128711.post-36080323491184952862010-09-25T13:20:00.000-07:002010-09-25T13:21:33.786-07:00On dreamsI would have liked to have been a novelist.<br />I would have liked to have been a journalist.<br />I would have liked to have been a historian.<br />I would have liked to have been a composer.<br />I would have liked to have been a real mathematician.<br /><br />I am filled with admiration for people who create things, yet I keep seeming to find myself empty of the effort and the talent.Save the Oocytes!http://www.blogger.com/profile/13596820141399917244noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8873121296356128711.post-66085967747574311042010-09-25T08:38:00.001-07:002010-09-25T08:38:57.860-07:00ConservatismVia lenin, a penetrating analysis of conservatism, attacking the myth that it stands for the status quo, both in modern terms and in historical context. Talks about its preference for outsiders, its appropriation of the language of the left, its strange brand of populism, and the centrality of its feeling of loss.<br /><br /><a href="http://leiterreports.typepad.com/files/raritan-essay.pdf">Here.</a>Save the Oocytes!http://www.blogger.com/profile/13596820141399917244noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8873121296356128711.post-2187931528694151992010-09-20T16:34:00.000-07:002010-09-20T16:36:23.019-07:00Boycott Israel<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/dWFlRDfcxYQ&border=1&color1=0x234900&color2=0x4e9e00&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/dWFlRDfcxYQ&border=1&color1=0x234900&color2=0x4e9e00&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" width="640" height="385"></embed></object><br /><br />The organization that sponsored this protest, <a href="http://www.europalestine.com/" target="_blank">CAPJPO Europpalestine,</a>, is being prosecuted for "offense of incitement to discrimination, hatred or violence against a group of people on account of their belonging to the Israeli nation," believe it or not. I'm putting up this video in solidarity.Save the Oocytes!http://www.blogger.com/profile/13596820141399917244noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8873121296356128711.post-65964185537101655972010-09-18T11:16:00.000-07:002010-09-18T11:28:50.021-07:00The American Jewish Committee and Islamophobia<a href="http://www.wickedlocal.com/wellesley/features/x995825621/Jewish-advocacy-group-calls-for-state-guidelines-in-wake-of-mosque-field-trip-debate">Children visiting a mosque in Roxbury stop of their own volition to pray</a>, and "Jewish advocates" are outraged. They call for "further guidelines."<br /><blockquote>The [teachers on the trip] and or the superintendent should be fired or at a minimum they should be suspended. This is act a provocation by those officials at that mosque probably with the dimwitted acquiescence of the school officials who just went along with it.<br /></blockquote>What does it say about someone's personal insecurity that they feel threatened by such a little thing? I feel personally ashamed that these people are supposed to represent organized Jewry. Don't you? You don't have to identify as Jewish; the shame radiates to all sensible people. It reminds me of <a href="http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/religious_tolerance/dt13_13-15.html">"You must banish this evil from among you."</a> How far we've failed to come as human beings.Save the Oocytes!http://www.blogger.com/profile/13596820141399917244noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8873121296356128711.post-33981330950421487182010-09-18T00:14:00.000-07:002010-09-18T10:32:17.425-07:00Email to a Chinese friend, on the movie "The Stoning of Soraya M"Overly didactic?<br /><hr /><br />Iran's democracy was overthrown in 1953 by the US CIA with some aid from the British. It was done partly for the benefit of BP. We installed the Shah, who ruled with a brutal secret police force until he was overthrown in 1979. The forces that eventually took power were religious fundamentalists, holding to a very archaic and inflexible version of Islam.<br /><br />(The religion is Islam; a person who believes in Islam is a Muslim.)<br /><br />Islam does hold that a woman should have her head "covered" in some way, but the method is widely open to interpretation. Some interpret it as a scarf. Some interpret it as meaning that the woman should be completely covered so she can't be seen at all. The latter view isn't<br />well supported by the actual scripture, but different societies have come to believe in it, and it has become ingrained in some of them over time. I think it is deeply unfair.<br /><br />All religion means superstition, but there are different views within all religions as well. The official Iranian Islam is extreme. Nothing inherent in Islam, however, makes it worse than Judaism or Christianity.<br /><br />Stoning as a method of killing is found in the Christian bible as well; you may remember it from The Brick Testament as a punishment for adultresses (like they claimed Soraya M. was) and children who disrespect their parents. The difference is that there isn't a Christian society that actually listens to that part of the Bible anymore, so far as I know; it's ignored. I think that gradually happens with all religions, that the more terrible parts are slowly<br />stripped away.<br /><br />Women are still something in Iran, but barbaric ancient punishments for adultery still exist, and they don't have equal rights. You might be surprised, on the other hand, to learn that a significant majority of university students in Iran are women. I don't know why that is.<br /><br />I despise the Iranian penal system, and think Iran needs a new government. On the other hand, I also admire Iran's resistance to US hegemony, and support it in that. I think you're right to admire their resistance. I would like to see the current regime in Iran end, but I DON'T want Washington to do it (you had better believe there are parts of the US government working on it), and I don't want to see a new regime subservient to the US emerge in its stead. I don't like the<br />Iranian government, but I support the integrity of Iran against US intervention.<br /><br />You have to remember that the US opposition to Iran has little to do with its legal system and everything to do with its understandable failure to serve or bow down to Washington. Saudi Arabia has a similarly brutal regime of religious law, but it is a US ally, so Washington is very quiet about its atrocities. In fact, we are about to ship $60 billion worth of weapons there.<br /><br />Islam has nonetheless come in for especial demonization in the US, for essentially the same reason that Judaism used to before the Holocaust: racism and xenophobia. Muslims are a disadvantaged minority in the US, discriminated against by fearful bigots. My criticism of Islam as a religion is tempered by the use that militarists, warmongers, and racists make of it to justify discrimination and war.<br /><br />In short:<br /><ul><li>The US only cares about human rights violations of its enemies.<br /></li><li>Religions are stupid, but there are differing views within all religions.<br /></li><li>Most Muslims don't hold the views of the Iranian government.<br /></li><li>I support the Iranian people both against their own government and against the US.<br /></li><li>The worst possible situation for them is the US declaring war and destroying yet another country.<br /></li></ul><br />These are just my views, but I hope they make some sense.Save the Oocytes!http://www.blogger.com/profile/13596820141399917244noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8873121296356128711.post-37511350388268931872010-09-15T19:39:00.000-07:002010-09-15T20:13:42.162-07:00The Tea Party candidate winning the primary in Delaware somehow doesn't bother me so much as amuse me. I know there are those in my cohort, perhaps most, who will be horrified, but for some reason I'm not. It's not that I think Christine O'Donnell is sane, and it's not that I'm pleased that it makes a Democratic victory more likely. It just boggles the mind to think of a declining empire so filled with rage, economic insecurity, ostentatious religiosity, and sheer madness that this is its candidate for national office. On some level it seems like laughing at it is the only thing for it. It's not that I've given up faith in the left, but it's clear I am not able to be much help in organizing the forces of Good. And it's good to see the Republicans at war with their own base.<br /><br />As everybody I've read has pointed out numerous times, it doesn't on average matter whether a (D) or an (R) wins the senate. Before the Dems protested they needed sixty seats to do anything their base wanted; when Obama craps out in 2012 they'll say they needed fifty. If they had sixty, they'd need seventy. As for having someone not like Bush in the presidency, I've been appalled by Obama so far. It strains the imagination to think how McCain could have been worse. Would he really have "bomb, bomb, bomb bombed Iran"? I guess it's possible. At this point I couldn't put it past anyone.<br /><br />I do like this <a href="http://stopmebeforeivoteagain.org/2010/09/dumping_obama.html">dump Obama</a> idea as an a idea to channel disenchantment, disenchantment that must be spread on a much broader scale. As pointed out in the comments, it doesn't have much chance of meeting its stated goal, but as a slogan, as an idea, it's wonderful.<br />I envy the Republican base its energy, its influence over at least one party. The Dem base and those further left are in the wilderness. I find it difficult to imagine a situation in which there were people in control I felt represented me. Here's to the end of systems of control, then.Save the Oocytes!http://www.blogger.com/profile/13596820141399917244noreply@blogger.com0