| |||||||||
Yuccacentric Blistered Avalon Age-Old Songs Gegenwärtigkeit Donkey Balls Scott Timmreck The Daily Rede Cathartic Seclusion?
wockerjabby synesthesia Genarti's Journal Rebecca's LiveJournal Darin's Journal barbara's LiveJournal rabi's LiveJournal Abbie the cat has a posse
minister.without.portfolio Hesitant Firmness Bouillabaisse for the Soul Changed Priorities Ahead Slumbering Lungfish Disturbing Search Requests
Comet Cursor is currently in the Kiosk.
This site uses stylesheets. Which means you shouldn't use Netscape.
Washington Post Sydney Morning Herald National Geographic News IWPR: Central Asia Newsweek U.S. News & World Report Witchvox Foreign Affairs Public Interest El Nuevo Herald New York Times: Science The Philosophers' Magazine Arts & Letters Daily Christian Science Monitor Internet Sacred Text Archive © Eemeet Meeker Online Enterprises, to the extent that slapping up a copyright notice constitutes actual copyright protection. | |||||||||
VVV Al Gore's speech the other day lambasting the Bush administration's preparations for war seems to have given everyone what they wanted. It was a manifestly political move, which took on the tough task of justifying his hawkish side (he was one of the few Democrats to vote for Desert Storm, and he doesn't regret the Clinton administration's bombing of Qaida camps after the African embassy bombings) while taking the current government to task for its handling of the coming confrontation with Iraq. In the twisting required to do this, he provided both hawks and doves with confirmation of what they believe. Those who question the war were overjoyed to have a major political figure, not to mention the guy they would rather have in the Oval Office, taking a strong anti-Bush stance. The message lately from most congressmen (Democrats and Republicans alike) has been "sure you can attack Iraq, we just want you to ask us first." The debate has been over the government's checks and balances, not its foreign policy. Gore successfully reflected many of the concerns of the nation's unrepresented "peace wing." But because he was careful to say that he supported holding Saddam to account in principle, he avoided alienating those who don't like what the government is doing, but aren't willing to go so far as to outright oppose the war. The hawks, meanwhile, saw Gore's speech as a confirmation of lefty peacenik lunacy. Gore's continued forthright criticism of the government has confirmed his image as a sore loser to those inclined to see him that way. There was ample weaseliness in his speech (accusing Bush of using the war debate to further Republicans' electoral prospects, then claiming that others -- not him -- had made that accusation) to prove that the anti-war case was logically weak. The conclusion: If Al Gore is the best spokesman that the left can find, then we can't bomb Baghdad soon enough. About the only people disappointed by Gore were Democratic candidates who have been trying to claim the pro-war plank in the face of Republican accusations of being soft on Saddam. If the Democrats don't reclaim the House in November, we may see Gore accused of losing his party this election as well.
So the calming effect of a completely plantless garden is due to its resemblance to a tree. VVV Dick Armey's words of wisdom: "If you were a southern Anglo Baptist liberal, I promise you I would say you were not well educated and probably not a very deep thinker, because that's what liberals are," he said. "Liberals are, in my estimation, just not bright people. They don't think deeply, they don't comprehend, they don't understand a partial derivative, they have a narrow educational base as opposed to the hard scientists."
Every now and then, there's some good news.
VVV When I was thinking about my commentary for this week's Scarlet, one idea that occurred to me was to compare the way the US wants to lay the smackdown on Iraq for breaking UN resolutions, while we're happy to let Israel break them left and right. I shied away from it, as I try to stay out of the Israel-Palestine mess, and I didn't want to start off my Scarlet career with an anti-Israel sounding piece. But it seems that the PLO's negotiations affairs department has no such qualms, as they issued a report today making that very argument. It also seems that The Guardian has no qualms about simply restating the report's claims, rather than reporting on the fact that it was issued and the reaction to it. (via Democratic Underground) VVV Hawks are saying that the war on Iraq is as just as World War II but will be as easy as Desert Storm. Others are warning that it will be a counterproductive quagmire like Vietnam. But some of the most interesting analyses lately have drawn the parallel with World War I. VVV They say that having something in writing makes it more official and authoritative. But I'm finding the opposite to be true in my History of Geographic Thought class. Prof. Turner has written a number of articles on the topic, and several of them are on our reading list. I've found that his ideas about the history of geography are easier to question when I read them than when he says them. Part of it may be his personality. He's got that self-assured Texan attitude that makes it hard to disagree with him when he says things in class. Whereas reading his ideas gives you time to sit back and think, and formulate a critique. But I think there's more to it than that -- Prof. Peletz had a very different, much less forceful, persona and yet I found myself implicitly agreeing with his in-class assessments of the topic while being intensely critical of his book. Academia (particularly at higher levels) trains us to look at the scholarly literature as parts of a debate, open to question and playing off against one another. Reduced to paper, Prof. Turner is just another voice in the conversation, another viewpoint to look at. But in class, a professor takes on some of the role of a mentor. He comes with an agenda of what students should learn from the class, and students look to him to provide that expertise. It goes beyond the difference between "teacher" and "researcher" roles, though. I think the internet may have gotten us used to investing less authority in the written word. Things that are written seem sort of shouted into the abyss, put up for readers to look at and choose from. But speaking is more personal. The message is targeted at a particular person, and the connection that establishes -- the trust implied in the act of exchange, rather than leaving something to be picked up by someone else -- invests the message with a kind of authority that writing has lost.
VVV J.R.R. Tolkien is acknowledged as a master of fantasy world-building, and I'd hardly argue with the assessment. There's a huge depth to the mythology and history he created for Middle Earth, not to mention the skill he has in evoking the various landscapes his characters encounter. And I'll admit to now and then getting out The Fellowship of the Ring just to stare at the map. It's part of what got me interested in geography. But reading the Silmarillion last month, there was one thing that nagged at me about the world Tolkien created. It was almost all mythology and history. The lanscape was a backdrop for kings and heroes and great adventures, not a land where people lived from day to day. Aside from a few spots, such as the Shire and Beorn's house, there isn't a clear sense of the land as supporting its population. Where are the people hoeing their farms and hawking their wares? The dwarves are almost a mockery of my point -- a whole race devoted to one occupation, pursued for the sake of artisanry rather than sustenance. Much of the land can be excused as wilderness. But in cities like Lothlorien and Minas Tirith, where people are congregated, you get no sense of what they do all day. They exist as agglomerations of subjects around the great halls and castles, not hubs on trade networks and sites of manufacture. Where are the fields and pastures that must support the elves of Lorien? Sam and Frodo ran into Faramir's patrol, but no Gondorian farmers awaiting the spring flood of the Anduin. The wolf riders burned the trees to flush out the Dwarves, but not to open up the forest for game or planting. The population map in the Atlas of Middle Earth is telling. The only place where the land seems filled, where there is a full society rather than just dabs of people at the places that the mythic perspective takes notice of, are in Harad and Dorwinon -- lands far from the course of action in any of Tolkien's stories. VVV Why is it that 95% of the political blogs out there seem to use this template? Maybe that's why I'm not a first-tier commentary site -- it's this blue background dragging me down.
This article addresses the possibility that an attack would make Saddam more likely to use weapons of mass destruction against the US. It makes sense -- his weapons program is very likely based on prestige and asserting control. He wants to be able to wave them around to prove nobody can mess with him (much like the US). So he'd be likely to use them only when he's got nothing left to lose. What the article raises, but doesn't address, is the possibility of Iraq selling WMDs to terrorists. At the moment, that possibility, though a favorite of the Bush administration, is unlikely. Saddam wants WMDs so that he can show them off, not so that he can sell them for a quick buck. And it's highly unlikely he'd do any sort of deal with al Qaida, since Osama is as likely to nuke Iraq (he hates Saddam's Baath party for being secular and for oppressing its Muslim citizens) as nuke the US. But if the Iraqi regime collapses -- and it's certain to collapse before US troops have rooted out every cache of weapons -- we could easily wind up with a situation like post-Soviet Russia. With the Soviet regime gone and the new one too poor to support the weapons scattered around the republics, they started getting sold off to whoever could pay enough to keep bread on the weapons-holders' tables. Most of the guns used by the Chechen rebels, for example, were bought from Russia. It's clear from the example of Afghanistan that the US can't and won't set itself up as the government of Iraq. Therefore, there will be a dangerous period (which could last indefinitely) when there will be no authority in Iraq powerful enough to secure the WMD caches. This means that nuclear scientists could sell their goods and services to the highest (terrorist or warlord) bidder, not as part of any grand geopolitical strategy, but just to pay the rent. | |||||||||
