THIS IS SO COOL. check it out ppl:
http://www.time.com/time/specials/2008/top10/article/0,30583,1855948_1863947,00.html
Saturday, January 31, 2009
I survived!
I SURVIVED FRIDAY! WOO!
I SURVIVED THE BLOODY GOMBAK CROSS-COUNTRY RUN! yea baby!
It was a 'treacherous' (quote: chengxi) and gruelling (quote: subhas) 4.1km run up gombak hill. Goodness. I have technically never actually ran up hill - not to mention up and down various rocky inclines and one hell of an inline of 28degrees??? i dont recall a single person having actually ran up that slope.
and I STILL managed to beat CDF! woo! i'm good! :D i so thought i was gonna come in last. Towards the end I could hear my heart beating ONLY. many thanks to god for everything.
...
I also made it for the COA CNY reception. A job well done too! :D
my 2nd emceeing experience - less hallowing than the first and much better too. Of course, with the annoying emcee accent.
Yes. and today is laze around day as I finally feel my glutes, thighs and calves after such a long long while.
I swear to god that i have never felt so alive after the run yesterday. my nasal passageways were absolutely clear it was kinda freaky, and i was feeling really light headed too. wow! does wonders for confidence. yay!
what's next?
I SURVIVED THE BLOODY GOMBAK CROSS-COUNTRY RUN! yea baby!
It was a 'treacherous' (quote: chengxi) and gruelling (quote: subhas) 4.1km run up gombak hill. Goodness. I have technically never actually ran up hill - not to mention up and down various rocky inclines and one hell of an inline of 28degrees??? i dont recall a single person having actually ran up that slope.
and I STILL managed to beat CDF! woo! i'm good! :D i so thought i was gonna come in last. Towards the end I could hear my heart beating ONLY. many thanks to god for everything.
...
I also made it for the COA CNY reception. A job well done too! :D
my 2nd emceeing experience - less hallowing than the first and much better too. Of course, with the annoying emcee accent.
Yes. and today is laze around day as I finally feel my glutes, thighs and calves after such a long long while.
I swear to god that i have never felt so alive after the run yesterday. my nasal passageways were absolutely clear it was kinda freaky, and i was feeling really light headed too. wow! does wonders for confidence. yay!
what's next?
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Of Romantics and Republicans
It just enrages me every now and then in the midst of my book - Holy Madness: Romantics, Patriots, and Revolutionaries, 1776-1871.
No I have nothing against Zamoyski.
I just get riled up and pissed off when I read about some silly Romantic patriot who's so engulfed by his ideals - or the similarities between state-worship and christian-worship. however you define it. The irony of the 19th century is that a belief in rationality coincided with a widespread irrationality of the Romantic sort that pervaded through Europe like a disease; and through Europe the world!
Come the 21st century, reason and emotionality can't be defined and separated clearly anymore. American politics is a good example. So is YW, the epitome of dark irrationality.
It issn't the case that what we say goes.
And no, you don't decide the facts, or what's right and wrong. (As a side point, I have decided to coin a term ("confusionasionism"), meaning the emotive attempt to assert one's moral superiority over another through the posing of a question in a seemingly innocent way, but subverts truth through the use of poor reasoning smoked in a series of illogical - but not always identified clearly - arguments.)
In other news, Obama's stimulus package has been approved by Congress - but rejected by all house Republicans. Am I surprised? No. What irks me is all the confusionasionism going on. Facts and truths are subjugated amidst emotive appeals to 'poverty', 'transparency' and 'accountability'.
I think a good 99% of AC360 viewers have NEVER scrutinized the bill firsthand.
I also think that a good number of Republican reps close to that never have probably never bothered because voting FOR could lose them their seat.
And above all I think that no plan is perfect, but doing something is better than doing nothing at all. If there's anything I learnt, it seems pretty much that a system which has the greatest possibility of instilling confidence also encapsulates the worst. Why should it be otherwise? The American coin can flip either way any day. I'm just unable to comprehend at the present moment the complexity and alien-ness of American politics to my own country and culture. There is something wrong in all this. Democracy wasn't meant to be like that. Then again, why shouldn't it be?
We need a plan that is viable and accountable. I think the debate has to move away from 'what we should do'. Republican policy is hollow and empty. 8 yrs is enough. But we need to improve the current one as well so that the world won't go down to hell with the Americas.
No I have nothing against Zamoyski.
I just get riled up and pissed off when I read about some silly Romantic patriot who's so engulfed by his ideals - or the similarities between state-worship and christian-worship. however you define it. The irony of the 19th century is that a belief in rationality coincided with a widespread irrationality of the Romantic sort that pervaded through Europe like a disease; and through Europe the world!
Come the 21st century, reason and emotionality can't be defined and separated clearly anymore. American politics is a good example. So is YW, the epitome of dark irrationality.
It issn't the case that what we say goes.
And no, you don't decide the facts, or what's right and wrong. (As a side point, I have decided to coin a term ("confusionasionism"), meaning the emotive attempt to assert one's moral superiority over another through the posing of a question in a seemingly innocent way, but subverts truth through the use of poor reasoning smoked in a series of illogical - but not always identified clearly - arguments.)
In other news, Obama's stimulus package has been approved by Congress - but rejected by all house Republicans. Am I surprised? No. What irks me is all the confusionasionism going on. Facts and truths are subjugated amidst emotive appeals to 'poverty', 'transparency' and 'accountability'.
I think a good 99% of AC360 viewers have NEVER scrutinized the bill firsthand.
I also think that a good number of Republican reps close to that never have probably never bothered because voting FOR could lose them their seat.
And above all I think that no plan is perfect, but doing something is better than doing nothing at all. If there's anything I learnt, it seems pretty much that a system which has the greatest possibility of instilling confidence also encapsulates the worst. Why should it be otherwise? The American coin can flip either way any day. I'm just unable to comprehend at the present moment the complexity and alien-ness of American politics to my own country and culture. There is something wrong in all this. Democracy wasn't meant to be like that. Then again, why shouldn't it be?
We need a plan that is viable and accountable. I think the debate has to move away from 'what we should do'. Republican policy is hollow and empty. 8 yrs is enough. But we need to improve the current one as well so that the world won't go down to hell with the Americas.
Monday, January 26, 2009
MR Hong Kong 08
It's old news but I'm watching it on TV now on CNY. Yes it's a very boring 1st day of CNY.
I'm reminded of the unfairness of the world once more and how I'm probably slapbang right at the top of the bellcurve. The winner was Michael Tsu. some hong-kong born american i think.
I'm reminded of the unfairness of the world once more and how I'm probably slapbang right at the top of the bellcurve. The winner was Michael Tsu. some hong-kong born american i think.
Apart from that I was frankly quite appalled and tickled by all the himbo-ness flying around. Oh god. It's so hilarious when they say 'im cute and hot and here to make you happy! vote for me!' *rolls eyes* sheesh. Not to mention the few really lame-ass vomit-inducing moments which made me say 'oh FUCK' involuntarily.
I need better entertainment, pronto.
Chomsky on Gaza
You be the judge.
Chomsky comes in around 30mins+
http://mikeely.wordpress.com/2009/01/25/obamas-gaza-policy-it-is-approximately-the-bush-position/
http://www.democracynow.org/2009/1/23/noam_chomsky_obamas_stance_on_gaza
Chomsky comes in around 30mins+
http://mikeely.wordpress.com/2009/01/25/obamas-gaza-policy-it-is-approximately-the-bush-position/
http://www.democracynow.org/2009/1/23/noam_chomsky_obamas_stance_on_gaza
Sunday, January 25, 2009
Unfairness
Its not fair how some guys can be so hot.
Check this guy out:
chisled looks - check
double-chin - check
sunny sunshine looks - check
boyish grin - check
perfectly symmetrical face - check
almost flawless skin - check
amazing chest and pecs - check
and he even has a workout video on youtube!
OKAY.
inspiration to work harder...
The West's Selective Reading of History
A very good article from Le Monde! Here's an extract:
Only the individual who fully recognises the humanity of others can be called civilised. “For a long time,” Todorov continues, “the ideas of the Enlightenment served as a source of inspiration for a liberal, reformist tendency that fought conservatism in the name of universalism and equal respect for all. Things have changed now, and the conservative defenders of the superiority of western thought claim to be the heirs of the Enlightenment, battling against the ‘relativism’ that they associate with the Romantic reaction of the early 19th century. But they can only achieve this by renouncing the true Enlightenment tradition with its articulation of universal values and cultural pluralism. We must go beyond the clichés: Enlightenment thought should not be confused either with dogmatism (my culture must be imposed upon all) or nihilism (all cultures are equally valid). To use it to denigrate others, as an excuse to subject or destroy them, is simply to hijack the Enlightenment.”
But was the Enlightenment really hijacked, or did it go along willingly? Hobson argues that the construction of 18th- and 19th-century European identity allowed the affirmation of an “exceptionalism” that no other civilisation has ever asserted. “Ultimately, the Europeans did not seek to remake the world simply because ‘they could’ (as in materialist explanations). They sought to remake the world because they believed they should. That is, their actions were significantly guided by their identity that deemed imperialism to be a morally appropriate policy.” Many European supporters of the anti-colonialist struggle and the Third World rejected this vision, often in the name of the Enlightenment. The debate will no doubt continue.
You can find the whole thing at: http://mondediplo.com/2009/01/07west
Only the individual who fully recognises the humanity of others can be called civilised. “For a long time,” Todorov continues, “the ideas of the Enlightenment served as a source of inspiration for a liberal, reformist tendency that fought conservatism in the name of universalism and equal respect for all. Things have changed now, and the conservative defenders of the superiority of western thought claim to be the heirs of the Enlightenment, battling against the ‘relativism’ that they associate with the Romantic reaction of the early 19th century. But they can only achieve this by renouncing the true Enlightenment tradition with its articulation of universal values and cultural pluralism. We must go beyond the clichés: Enlightenment thought should not be confused either with dogmatism (my culture must be imposed upon all) or nihilism (all cultures are equally valid). To use it to denigrate others, as an excuse to subject or destroy them, is simply to hijack the Enlightenment.”
But was the Enlightenment really hijacked, or did it go along willingly? Hobson argues that the construction of 18th- and 19th-century European identity allowed the affirmation of an “exceptionalism” that no other civilisation has ever asserted. “Ultimately, the Europeans did not seek to remake the world simply because ‘they could’ (as in materialist explanations). They sought to remake the world because they believed they should. That is, their actions were significantly guided by their identity that deemed imperialism to be a morally appropriate policy.” Many European supporters of the anti-colonialist struggle and the Third World rejected this vision, often in the name of the Enlightenment. The debate will no doubt continue.
You can find the whole thing at: http://mondediplo.com/2009/01/07west
Saturday, January 24, 2009
China's DWP 2008
I was reading a Foreign Policy analysis of the Chinese Defence White Paper and was rather skeptic. Therefore i decided to scrutinise it myself.
http://shadow.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/01/22/you_were_at_the_inauguration_china_was_planning_to_fight_america
In essence, "China's national defense policy for the new stage in the new century basically includes: upholding national security and unity, and ensuring the interests of national development; achieving the all-round, coordinated and sustainable development of China's national defense and armed forces; enhancing the performance of the armed forces with informationization as the major measuring criterion (took a tip or two from georgia); implementing the military strategy of active defense; pursuing a self-defensive nuclear strategy; and FOSTERING a security environment conducive to China's peaceful development."
Nevertheless, I have to say that I concur with the writer Dan Twining that the White Paper's primary audience is the USA. They aren't very subtle of course. Look at this:
"World peace and development are faced with multiple difficulties and challenges. Struggles for strategic resources, strategic locations and strategic dominance have intensified. Meanwhile, hegemonism and power politics still exist, regional turmoil keeps spilling over, hot-spot issues are increasing, and local conflicts and wars keep emerging. The impact of the financial crisis triggered by the U.S. subprime mortgage crisis is snowballing. In the aspect of world economic development, issues such as energy and food are becoming more serious, highlighting deep-seated contradictions. Economic risks are manifesting a more interconnected, systematic and global nature. Issues such as terrorism, environmental disasters, climate change, serious epidemics, transnational crime and pirates are becoming increasingly prominent."
It's a summary which I daresay some GP kids can't even do themselves, though it seems more of a checklist of developments in the later part of the 20th century. But look at the underlying resentment with the specific reference to 'THE U.S. subprime mortgage crisis'. It's not the 'global economic crisis', but a pinpointing of what the Chinese feel IS THE ROOT CAUSE. Not too different from Russia in this aspect.
And then there's this. It's thick.
"Driven by competition in overall national strength and the development of science and technology, international military competition is becoming increasingly intense, and the worldwide revolution in military affairs (RMA) is reaching a new stage of development. Some major powers are realigning their security and military strategies, increasing their defense investment, speeding up the transformation of armed forces, and developing advanced military technology, weapons and equipment. Strategic nuclear forces, military astronautics, missile defense systems, and global and battlefield reconnaissance and surveillance have become top priorities in their efforts to strengthen armed forces. Some developing countries are also actively seeking to acquire advanced weapons and equipment to increase their military power. All countries are attaching more importance to supporting diplomatic struggles with military means. As a result, arms races in some regions are heating up, posing grave challenges to the international arms control and nonproliferation regime."
The notables here is really the not-too-subtle reference once again to the US, which is the indisputed leader of the RMA (albeit with its own difficulties but nevertheless STILL the indisputed leader...). The usage of these terms should send 'pings!' into you. I'm not sure about the 'arms races' bit, though i think the reference to 'international arms control' and the 'nonproliferation regime' are just diplomatic-talk meant to appease the UN.
Again,
"At the same time, the U.S. has increased its strategic attention to and input in the Asia-Pacific region, further consolidating its military alliances, adjusting its military deployment and enhancing its military capabilities. In addition, terrorist, separatist and extremist forces are running rampant, and non-traditional security issues such as serious natural disasters crop up frequently. The mechanisms for security cooperation between countries and regions are yet to be enhanced, and the capability for coping with regional security threats in a coordinated way has to be improved...In particular, the United States continues to sell arms to Taiwan in violation of the principles established in the three Sino-U.S. joint communiques, causing serious harm to Sino-U.S. relations as well as peace and stability across the Taiwan Straits."
It's interesting to see how this blatant reference to the US presupposes the US itself to be part of the problem. The Chinese stand is therefore officially this: we ain't pursuing any extension of a sphere of influence, so you shouldn't as well. I'm wondering if China will go Putin in the future, if America keeps walling up China and pushing it back.
It's also not to subtle on things like - "China is playing an active and constructive role in multilateral affairs, thus notably elevating its international position and influence."
and even ASEAN is mentioned - "The conclusion of the ASEAN Charter has enabled a new step to be taken toward ASEAN integration. Remarkable achievements have been made in cooperation between China and ASEAN, as well as between ASEAN and China, Japan and the Republic of Korea."
While this is interesting - "The Six-Party Talks on the Korean nuclear issue have scored successive achievements, and the tension in Northeast Asia is much released."
This portion illicits careful reading though: "Issues of existence security and development security, traditional security threats and non-traditional security threats, and domestic security and international security are interwoven and interactive. China is faced with the superiority of the developed countries in economy, science and technology, as well as military affairs. It also faces strategic maneuvers and containment from the outside while having to face disruption and sabotage by separatist and hostile forces from the inside. "
There is lingering suspicion of American espionage attempts attempting to aid rebellion and resistance within China. This brings to mind the Tibet fiasco last year, not to mention annoying human rights groups based in America as well, though the bottom line is that internal threats to the regime are still their primary concern. The status quo can be jeopardised however, by international developments (i.e. global credit crunch and impact on the CCP).
It is nevertheless, good to know that "China will never seek hegemony or engage in military expansion now or in the future, no matter how developed it becomes", though the question begs as to how it plans to FOSTER 'a security environment conducive to China's peaceful development'
...
Technology is the essence of RMA and this is how the Chinese plan to do it:
" Persisting in taking mechanization as the foundation and informationization as focus, China is stepping up the composite development of mechanization and informationization. Persisting in strengthening the military by means of science and technology, China is working to develop new and high-tech weaponry and equipment, carry out the strategic project of training talented people, conduct military training in conditions of informationization, and build a modern logistics system in an all-round way, so as to change the mode of formation of war-fighting capabilities. "
However I think on the whole, 'the strategic project of training talent people' is highly flawed. My impression of the chinese system is still rather 'factory-like' in its produce, and im not sure about their capability to produce leadership which looks beyond mere knowledge of technical facts. They may prove me wrong, but I don't think that their 'talent management scheme' is currently producing much results, esp with cronyism in the upper echelons.
Meanwhile with their economy in deep shit too, I highly doubt their ability to "call for the building of a lean and effective deterrent force and the flexible use of different means of deterrence." I'm quite concerned about this - It takes military operations other than war (MOOTW) as an important form of applying national military forces, and scientifically makes and executes plans for the development of MOOTW capabilities. - which could point to greater Chinese exposure through the UN platform (or not). Not sure where they got their idea from...
OOOO and this part i like: The PLA insists on putting ideological and political work first, and pushing forward the innovative development of ideological and political work, to ensure the Party's absolute leadership over the armed forces, the scientific development of the military, the all-round development of the officers and men, the increase of combat capabilities and the effective fulfillment of historical missions...The PLA persists in arming its officers and men with the theory of socialism with Chinese characteristics, educates them in its historical missions, ideals, beliefs, fighting spirit and the socialist concept of honor and disgrace, and carries forward the fine traditions of obeying the Party's orders, serving the people, and fighting bravely and skillfully. The PLA's ideological and political education adheres to six principles: to be guided by scientific theories, to put the people first, to focus on the central task and serve the overall interests, to aim at concrete results, to educate through practical activities, and to encourage innovation and development.
I really don't see how any of this is 'socialist'. It's Maoist alright, but merely cliche. The 'historical' part makes me laugh out loud cuz its vaguely marxist, but really just an abuse of commie jingo. It all goes downhill from there...
http://shadow.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/01/22/you_were_at_the_inauguration_china_was_planning_to_fight_america
In essence, "China's national defense policy for the new stage in the new century basically includes: upholding national security and unity, and ensuring the interests of national development; achieving the all-round, coordinated and sustainable development of China's national defense and armed forces; enhancing the performance of the armed forces with informationization as the major measuring criterion (took a tip or two from georgia); implementing the military strategy of active defense; pursuing a self-defensive nuclear strategy; and FOSTERING a security environment conducive to China's peaceful development."
Nevertheless, I have to say that I concur with the writer Dan Twining that the White Paper's primary audience is the USA. They aren't very subtle of course. Look at this:
"World peace and development are faced with multiple difficulties and challenges. Struggles for strategic resources, strategic locations and strategic dominance have intensified. Meanwhile, hegemonism and power politics still exist, regional turmoil keeps spilling over, hot-spot issues are increasing, and local conflicts and wars keep emerging. The impact of the financial crisis triggered by the U.S. subprime mortgage crisis is snowballing. In the aspect of world economic development, issues such as energy and food are becoming more serious, highlighting deep-seated contradictions. Economic risks are manifesting a more interconnected, systematic and global nature. Issues such as terrorism, environmental disasters, climate change, serious epidemics, transnational crime and pirates are becoming increasingly prominent."
It's a summary which I daresay some GP kids can't even do themselves, though it seems more of a checklist of developments in the later part of the 20th century. But look at the underlying resentment with the specific reference to 'THE U.S. subprime mortgage crisis'. It's not the 'global economic crisis', but a pinpointing of what the Chinese feel IS THE ROOT CAUSE. Not too different from Russia in this aspect.
And then there's this. It's thick.
"Driven by competition in overall national strength and the development of science and technology, international military competition is becoming increasingly intense, and the worldwide revolution in military affairs (RMA) is reaching a new stage of development. Some major powers are realigning their security and military strategies, increasing their defense investment, speeding up the transformation of armed forces, and developing advanced military technology, weapons and equipment. Strategic nuclear forces, military astronautics, missile defense systems, and global and battlefield reconnaissance and surveillance have become top priorities in their efforts to strengthen armed forces. Some developing countries are also actively seeking to acquire advanced weapons and equipment to increase their military power. All countries are attaching more importance to supporting diplomatic struggles with military means. As a result, arms races in some regions are heating up, posing grave challenges to the international arms control and nonproliferation regime."
The notables here is really the not-too-subtle reference once again to the US, which is the indisputed leader of the RMA (albeit with its own difficulties but nevertheless STILL the indisputed leader...). The usage of these terms should send 'pings!' into you. I'm not sure about the 'arms races' bit, though i think the reference to 'international arms control' and the 'nonproliferation regime' are just diplomatic-talk meant to appease the UN.
Again,
"At the same time, the U.S. has increased its strategic attention to and input in the Asia-Pacific region, further consolidating its military alliances, adjusting its military deployment and enhancing its military capabilities. In addition, terrorist, separatist and extremist forces are running rampant, and non-traditional security issues such as serious natural disasters crop up frequently. The mechanisms for security cooperation between countries and regions are yet to be enhanced, and the capability for coping with regional security threats in a coordinated way has to be improved...In particular, the United States continues to sell arms to Taiwan in violation of the principles established in the three Sino-U.S. joint communiques, causing serious harm to Sino-U.S. relations as well as peace and stability across the Taiwan Straits."
It's interesting to see how this blatant reference to the US presupposes the US itself to be part of the problem. The Chinese stand is therefore officially this: we ain't pursuing any extension of a sphere of influence, so you shouldn't as well. I'm wondering if China will go Putin in the future, if America keeps walling up China and pushing it back.
It's also not to subtle on things like - "China is playing an active and constructive role in multilateral affairs, thus notably elevating its international position and influence."
and even ASEAN is mentioned - "The conclusion of the ASEAN Charter has enabled a new step to be taken toward ASEAN integration. Remarkable achievements have been made in cooperation between China and ASEAN, as well as between ASEAN and China, Japan and the Republic of Korea."
While this is interesting - "The Six-Party Talks on the Korean nuclear issue have scored successive achievements, and the tension in Northeast Asia is much released."
This portion illicits careful reading though: "Issues of existence security and development security, traditional security threats and non-traditional security threats, and domestic security and international security are interwoven and interactive. China is faced with the superiority of the developed countries in economy, science and technology, as well as military affairs. It also faces strategic maneuvers and containment from the outside while having to face disruption and sabotage by separatist and hostile forces from the inside. "
There is lingering suspicion of American espionage attempts attempting to aid rebellion and resistance within China. This brings to mind the Tibet fiasco last year, not to mention annoying human rights groups based in America as well, though the bottom line is that internal threats to the regime are still their primary concern. The status quo can be jeopardised however, by international developments (i.e. global credit crunch and impact on the CCP).
It is nevertheless, good to know that "China will never seek hegemony or engage in military expansion now or in the future, no matter how developed it becomes", though the question begs as to how it plans to FOSTER 'a security environment conducive to China's peaceful development'
...
Technology is the essence of RMA and this is how the Chinese plan to do it:
" Persisting in taking mechanization as the foundation and informationization as focus, China is stepping up the composite development of mechanization and informationization. Persisting in strengthening the military by means of science and technology, China is working to develop new and high-tech weaponry and equipment, carry out the strategic project of training talented people, conduct military training in conditions of informationization, and build a modern logistics system in an all-round way, so as to change the mode of formation of war-fighting capabilities. "
However I think on the whole, 'the strategic project of training talent people' is highly flawed. My impression of the chinese system is still rather 'factory-like' in its produce, and im not sure about their capability to produce leadership which looks beyond mere knowledge of technical facts. They may prove me wrong, but I don't think that their 'talent management scheme' is currently producing much results, esp with cronyism in the upper echelons.
Meanwhile with their economy in deep shit too, I highly doubt their ability to "call for the building of a lean and effective deterrent force and the flexible use of different means of deterrence." I'm quite concerned about this - It takes military operations other than war (MOOTW) as an important form of applying national military forces, and scientifically makes and executes plans for the development of MOOTW capabilities. - which could point to greater Chinese exposure through the UN platform (or not). Not sure where they got their idea from...
OOOO and this part i like: The PLA insists on putting ideological and political work first, and pushing forward the innovative development of ideological and political work, to ensure the Party's absolute leadership over the armed forces, the scientific development of the military, the all-round development of the officers and men, the increase of combat capabilities and the effective fulfillment of historical missions...The PLA persists in arming its officers and men with the theory of socialism with Chinese characteristics, educates them in its historical missions, ideals, beliefs, fighting spirit and the socialist concept of honor and disgrace, and carries forward the fine traditions of obeying the Party's orders, serving the people, and fighting bravely and skillfully. The PLA's ideological and political education adheres to six principles: to be guided by scientific theories, to put the people first, to focus on the central task and serve the overall interests, to aim at concrete results, to educate through practical activities, and to encourage innovation and development.
I really don't see how any of this is 'socialist'. It's Maoist alright, but merely cliche. The 'historical' part makes me laugh out loud cuz its vaguely marxist, but really just an abuse of commie jingo. It all goes downhill from there...
Hotness
I found this on Prof Chris Blattman's blog. this is so cool -
http://chrisblattman.blogspot.com/2009/01/political-science-and-economics-hot-or.html
In 2006, James Felton, Peter T. Koper, John Mitchell and Michael Stinson conducted research that sought to establish, inter alia how perceived hotness of professors affected their RateMyProfessors evaluations for teaching quality. As part of this exercise, Felton et al. ranked (Table 2 in their paper) the relative hotness quotients of 36 different academic disciplines.
so sorry rajesh!
anyway its kind of queer how religion is high in the rankings...
On another note, I found a brilliant article on the AC360 blog linked to foreignpolicy.com. its by Prof Stephan M. Walt who has a blog on FP.com. The full text is here - http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/01/17/the_myth_of_israels_strategic_genius
Here are some excerpts...
"In the late 1980s, Israel helped nurture Hamas -- yes, the same organization that the IDF is bent on destroying today -- as part of its long-standing effort to undermine Yasser Arafat and Fatah and keep the Palestinians divided. This decision backfired too, because Arafat eventually recognized Israel and agreed to negotiate a two-state solution, while Hamas emerged as a new and dangerous adversary that has refused to recognize Israel's existence and to live in peace with the Jewish state.
The signing of the Oslo Accords in 1993 offered an unprecedented chance to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict once and for all, but Israel's leaders failed to seize the moment. Prime Ministers Yitzhak Rabin, Shimon Peres, and Benjamin Netanyahu all refused to endorse the idea of a Palestinian state -- even Rabin never spoke publicly about allowing the Palestinians to have a state of their own -- and Ehud Barak's belated offer of statehood at the 2000 Camp David summit did not go far enough. As Barak's own foreign minister, Shlomo Ben-Ami, later admitted, "if I were a Palestinian, I would have rejected Camp David as well." (bolding and colors mine) Meanwhile, the number of settlers in the West Bank doubled during the Oslo period (1993-2001), and the Israelis built some 250 miles of connector roads in the West Bank. Palestinian leaders and U.S. officials made their own contributions to Oslo's failure, but Israel had clearly squandered what was probably the best opportunity it will ever have to negotiate a peace agreement with the Palestinians. Barak also derailed a peace treaty with Syria in early 2000 that appeared to be a done deal, at least to President Bill Clinton, who had helped fashion it. But when public opinion polls suggested that the Israeli public might not support the deal, the Israeli Prime Minister got cold feet and the talks collapsed. "
and...
"Finally, a similar strategic myopia is apparent in the assault on Gaza. Israeli leaders initially said that their goal was to inflict enough damage on Hamas so it could no longer threaten Israel with rocket attacks. But they now concede that Hamas will neither be destroyed nor disarmed by their attacks, and instead say that more extensive monitoring will prevent rocket parts and other weapons from being smuggled into Gaza. This is a vain hope, however. As I write this, Hamas has not accepted a ceasefire and is still firing rockets; even if it does accept a ceasefire soon, rocket and mortar fire are bound to resume at some point in the future. On top of that, Israel's international image has taken a drubbing, Hamas is probably more popular, and moderate leaders like Mahmoud Abbas have been badly discredited. A two-state solution -- which is essential if Israel wishes to remain Jewish and democratic and to avoid becoming an apartheid state -- is farther away than ever. The IDF performed better in Gaza than it did in Lebanon, largely because Hamas is a less formidable foe than Hezbollah. But this does not matter: the war against Hamas is still a strategic failure. And to have inflicted such carnage on the Palestinians for no lasting strategic gain is especially reprehensible. "
"The moral of this story is that there is no reason to think that Israel always has well-conceived strategies for dealing with the problems that it faces. "
--
Well said Prof Stephen. You can find his blog here-http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/
This gives me great ideas with my time in oxford! I will probably be posting random stuff abt the things im reading and on current affairs too! We need cool profs in ox too.
http://chrisblattman.blogspot.com/2009/01/political-science-and-economics-hot-or.html
In 2006, James Felton, Peter T. Koper, John Mitchell and Michael Stinson conducted research that sought to establish, inter alia how perceived hotness of professors affected their RateMyProfessors evaluations for teaching quality. As part of this exercise, Felton et al. ranked (Table 2 in their paper) the relative hotness quotients of 36 different academic disciplines.
so sorry rajesh!
anyway its kind of queer how religion is high in the rankings...
On another note, I found a brilliant article on the AC360 blog linked to foreignpolicy.com. its by Prof Stephan M. Walt who has a blog on FP.com. The full text is here - http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/01/17/the_myth_of_israels_strategic_genius
Here are some excerpts...
"In the late 1980s, Israel helped nurture Hamas -- yes, the same organization that the IDF is bent on destroying today -- as part of its long-standing effort to undermine Yasser Arafat and Fatah and keep the Palestinians divided. This decision backfired too, because Arafat eventually recognized Israel and agreed to negotiate a two-state solution, while Hamas emerged as a new and dangerous adversary that has refused to recognize Israel's existence and to live in peace with the Jewish state.
The signing of the Oslo Accords in 1993 offered an unprecedented chance to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict once and for all, but Israel's leaders failed to seize the moment. Prime Ministers Yitzhak Rabin, Shimon Peres, and Benjamin Netanyahu all refused to endorse the idea of a Palestinian state -- even Rabin never spoke publicly about allowing the Palestinians to have a state of their own -- and Ehud Barak's belated offer of statehood at the 2000 Camp David summit did not go far enough. As Barak's own foreign minister, Shlomo Ben-Ami, later admitted, "if I were a Palestinian, I would have rejected Camp David as well." (bolding and colors mine) Meanwhile, the number of settlers in the West Bank doubled during the Oslo period (1993-2001), and the Israelis built some 250 miles of connector roads in the West Bank. Palestinian leaders and U.S. officials made their own contributions to Oslo's failure, but Israel had clearly squandered what was probably the best opportunity it will ever have to negotiate a peace agreement with the Palestinians. Barak also derailed a peace treaty with Syria in early 2000 that appeared to be a done deal, at least to President Bill Clinton, who had helped fashion it. But when public opinion polls suggested that the Israeli public might not support the deal, the Israeli Prime Minister got cold feet and the talks collapsed. "
and...
"Finally, a similar strategic myopia is apparent in the assault on Gaza. Israeli leaders initially said that their goal was to inflict enough damage on Hamas so it could no longer threaten Israel with rocket attacks. But they now concede that Hamas will neither be destroyed nor disarmed by their attacks, and instead say that more extensive monitoring will prevent rocket parts and other weapons from being smuggled into Gaza. This is a vain hope, however. As I write this, Hamas has not accepted a ceasefire and is still firing rockets; even if it does accept a ceasefire soon, rocket and mortar fire are bound to resume at some point in the future. On top of that, Israel's international image has taken a drubbing, Hamas is probably more popular, and moderate leaders like Mahmoud Abbas have been badly discredited. A two-state solution -- which is essential if Israel wishes to remain Jewish and democratic and to avoid becoming an apartheid state -- is farther away than ever. The IDF performed better in Gaza than it did in Lebanon, largely because Hamas is a less formidable foe than Hezbollah. But this does not matter: the war against Hamas is still a strategic failure. And to have inflicted such carnage on the Palestinians for no lasting strategic gain is especially reprehensible. "
"The moral of this story is that there is no reason to think that Israel always has well-conceived strategies for dealing with the problems that it faces. "
--
Well said Prof Stephen. You can find his blog here-http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/
This gives me great ideas with my time in oxford! I will probably be posting random stuff abt the things im reading and on current affairs too! We need cool profs in ox too.
Friday, January 23, 2009
Ode to Idiocy
when you're illogical and stubborn
you're life sucks but you don't know it
and you think others are bad.
your life is really really sad and i feel for you.
contempt.
anger.
irritated.
it seems clear to me now that your foolishness cannot be eradicated easily without a traumatic and terrible experience that will destroy whatever inclinations you have. it is unfortunate that you will never go through that.
education has failed you.
reason has eluded you.
and the Enlightenment never was.
you're life sucks but you don't know it
and you think others are bad.
your life is really really sad and i feel for you.
contempt.
anger.
irritated.
it seems clear to me now that your foolishness cannot be eradicated easily without a traumatic and terrible experience that will destroy whatever inclinations you have. it is unfortunate that you will never go through that.
education has failed you.
reason has eluded you.
and the Enlightenment never was.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
King of the Office
I'm alone in the office this morning! I'm hereby King for the morning! MUAHAHAHA.
Obama's Transatlatic Challenges
http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/article.aspx?id=3179
MADRID, Spain -- Barack Obama begins his presidency with an unprecedented level of goodwill among Europeans, who are hoping he will reverse many of the unpopular policies that embittered transatlantic relations under his predecessor. As the contours of Obama's foreign policy come into focus, however, much of the onus for smoothing the frayed relationship will lie with Europe, not the United States.
Obama faces a daunting list of domestic and foreign policy challenges, at a time when the United States' historic levels of debt -- combined with the faltering American economy -- will force him to call on Europeans to do more. Transatlantic relations will certainly suffer if Europeans are unwilling to meet his requests.
But even if Europeans do come to Obama's aid, the transatlantic landscape will still be subject to tension. Not only are Obama's positions on many key domestic and foreign policy issues quite different from those held by European leaders, he is likely to make many of the same demands on Europe that his predecessor did.
His formidable national security team, too, surrounds him with advocates of "American pre-eminence" (Secretary of State Hillary Clinton), and the unilateral use of military force in the absence of U.N. support (Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice). Neither approach is likely to win him friends in European capitals.
The following is a brief summary of what Obama's first year in office holds in store for transatlantic relations.
Afghanistan. Afghanistan will, more than any other foreign policy issue, determine the course of transatlantic relations during Obama's presidency. Obama plans to send as many as 30,000 additional American soldiers to Afghanistan, while also seeking greater troop contributions from his already very reluctant European counterparts. The tension will come to a head in April 2009, when leaders of the 26-member NATO alliance gather for a summit in France and Germany.
Iran. Obama has vowed to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, declaring on the one hand that he "will never take military options off the table," while on the other that he would like to engage Iran with no preconditions. This puts him on a collision course with European officials, who want to continue with the existing European-led diplomatic track that makes Iran's suspension of uranium enrichment a precondition for U.S. engagement.Moreover, should Obama's own diplomatic outreach fail to elicit a shift from Tehran, efforts to establish new, more comprehensive sanctions will prove a hard sell in Europe, which has a robust trading relationship with Iran.
European-based Missile Defense. As a candidate, Obama said he would cut spending on "unproven" missile defense systems, but he has not made any definitive declarations on a planned missile defense system based in Poland and the Czech Republic. Despite a NATO endorsement for the plan at the Bucharest summit in April 2008, Europeans remain deeply divided over the issue. Poland and the Czech Republic believe missile defense will enhance their security vis-à-vis Russia, while much of Western Europe is nervous about antagonizing Moscow, which strongly opposes the system's deployment.
NATO. In addition to the problem of troop commitments, the United States and its European allies have fundamentally different ideas about what is needed to turn Afghanistan into a functioning country. The practical effect of the rift has been to undermine NATO's credibility by exposing the alliance's inability to carry out ambitious projects. Allies are also divided over the issue of NATO membership for Georgia and Ukraine. Obama says he supports their admission to NATO "when they are ready." NATO allies like France and Germany, however, are opposed to expanding the alliance, again for fear of provoking another confrontation with Russia.
Climate Change. Obama has vowed to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 80 percent by 2050, and invest $150 billion in new energy-saving technologies. If approved by the U.S. Congress, his approach will be far more ambitious than anything proposed by Europe, which nevertheless portrays itself as the global leader on this issue.EU leaders agreed to new climate change targets in December 2008, but the issue will come to a head in December 2009, at scheduled U.N. talks in Copenhagen on a pact to replace the Kyoto Protocol.
Global Economics. While Obama has pledged to implement a comprehensive series of reforms to the American economy designed to prevent a repeat of the current financial crisis, he is unlikely to agree to European demands to "rewrite the rules of global capitalism." Transatlantic differences over the appropriate levels of state intervention will come to a head at a major economic summit in London in April 2009.
Arab-Israeli Conflict. European leaders are hoping for more "balance" in the American approach to the conflict, but indications are that U.S.-Israeli ties will remain close. Although Obama's position will in part depend on the winner of Israeli elections in February, he has expressed sympathy for Israel's security dilemma, and Clinton has historically been a staunch supporter of Israel.
Guantánamo. Although Obama wants to shut down the Gitmo detention camp, the many legal challenges involved means that it may take as long as a year to actually close the site. European governments, who have for years called for the camp's closure, will be under pressure to help Obama find a home for some of its 248 remaining detainees. But Europeans remain split on the issue, with some countries saying they will consider taking some inmates, and others insisting it is Washington's responsibility.
Despite Obama's much-vaunted global worldview, as president he will put American interests first. But the help he receives from Europe could well determine how successful he is in advancing them. In this context, one of Obama's major trump cards is European public opinion, which across the political spectrum genuinely wants him to succeed. As a result, European governments may find it easier to support Obama on the the most difficult and important issues in ways not possible before.
Soeren Kern is senior fellow for Transatlantic Relations at the Madrid-based Grupo de Estudios Estratégicos / Strategic Studies Group.
MADRID, Spain -- Barack Obama begins his presidency with an unprecedented level of goodwill among Europeans, who are hoping he will reverse many of the unpopular policies that embittered transatlantic relations under his predecessor. As the contours of Obama's foreign policy come into focus, however, much of the onus for smoothing the frayed relationship will lie with Europe, not the United States.
Obama faces a daunting list of domestic and foreign policy challenges, at a time when the United States' historic levels of debt -- combined with the faltering American economy -- will force him to call on Europeans to do more. Transatlantic relations will certainly suffer if Europeans are unwilling to meet his requests.
But even if Europeans do come to Obama's aid, the transatlantic landscape will still be subject to tension. Not only are Obama's positions on many key domestic and foreign policy issues quite different from those held by European leaders, he is likely to make many of the same demands on Europe that his predecessor did.
His formidable national security team, too, surrounds him with advocates of "American pre-eminence" (Secretary of State Hillary Clinton), and the unilateral use of military force in the absence of U.N. support (Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice). Neither approach is likely to win him friends in European capitals.
The following is a brief summary of what Obama's first year in office holds in store for transatlantic relations.
Afghanistan. Afghanistan will, more than any other foreign policy issue, determine the course of transatlantic relations during Obama's presidency. Obama plans to send as many as 30,000 additional American soldiers to Afghanistan, while also seeking greater troop contributions from his already very reluctant European counterparts. The tension will come to a head in April 2009, when leaders of the 26-member NATO alliance gather for a summit in France and Germany.
Iran. Obama has vowed to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, declaring on the one hand that he "will never take military options off the table," while on the other that he would like to engage Iran with no preconditions. This puts him on a collision course with European officials, who want to continue with the existing European-led diplomatic track that makes Iran's suspension of uranium enrichment a precondition for U.S. engagement.Moreover, should Obama's own diplomatic outreach fail to elicit a shift from Tehran, efforts to establish new, more comprehensive sanctions will prove a hard sell in Europe, which has a robust trading relationship with Iran.
European-based Missile Defense. As a candidate, Obama said he would cut spending on "unproven" missile defense systems, but he has not made any definitive declarations on a planned missile defense system based in Poland and the Czech Republic. Despite a NATO endorsement for the plan at the Bucharest summit in April 2008, Europeans remain deeply divided over the issue. Poland and the Czech Republic believe missile defense will enhance their security vis-à-vis Russia, while much of Western Europe is nervous about antagonizing Moscow, which strongly opposes the system's deployment.
NATO. In addition to the problem of troop commitments, the United States and its European allies have fundamentally different ideas about what is needed to turn Afghanistan into a functioning country. The practical effect of the rift has been to undermine NATO's credibility by exposing the alliance's inability to carry out ambitious projects. Allies are also divided over the issue of NATO membership for Georgia and Ukraine. Obama says he supports their admission to NATO "when they are ready." NATO allies like France and Germany, however, are opposed to expanding the alliance, again for fear of provoking another confrontation with Russia.
Climate Change. Obama has vowed to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 80 percent by 2050, and invest $150 billion in new energy-saving technologies. If approved by the U.S. Congress, his approach will be far more ambitious than anything proposed by Europe, which nevertheless portrays itself as the global leader on this issue.EU leaders agreed to new climate change targets in December 2008, but the issue will come to a head in December 2009, at scheduled U.N. talks in Copenhagen on a pact to replace the Kyoto Protocol.
Global Economics. While Obama has pledged to implement a comprehensive series of reforms to the American economy designed to prevent a repeat of the current financial crisis, he is unlikely to agree to European demands to "rewrite the rules of global capitalism." Transatlantic differences over the appropriate levels of state intervention will come to a head at a major economic summit in London in April 2009.
Arab-Israeli Conflict. European leaders are hoping for more "balance" in the American approach to the conflict, but indications are that U.S.-Israeli ties will remain close. Although Obama's position will in part depend on the winner of Israeli elections in February, he has expressed sympathy for Israel's security dilemma, and Clinton has historically been a staunch supporter of Israel.
Guantánamo. Although Obama wants to shut down the Gitmo detention camp, the many legal challenges involved means that it may take as long as a year to actually close the site. European governments, who have for years called for the camp's closure, will be under pressure to help Obama find a home for some of its 248 remaining detainees. But Europeans remain split on the issue, with some countries saying they will consider taking some inmates, and others insisting it is Washington's responsibility.
Despite Obama's much-vaunted global worldview, as president he will put American interests first. But the help he receives from Europe could well determine how successful he is in advancing them. In this context, one of Obama's major trump cards is European public opinion, which across the political spectrum genuinely wants him to succeed. As a result, European governments may find it easier to support Obama on the the most difficult and important issues in ways not possible before.
Soeren Kern is senior fellow for Transatlantic Relations at the Madrid-based Grupo de Estudios Estratégicos / Strategic Studies Group.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Inauguration
I'm watching CNN's Larry King Live. Caught glimpses of it.
An elderly black man was sobbing, saying something about how the inauguration was a reflection of the US being a 'good country'. True emotions poured out. Pain and anguish. The triumph over oppression.
In many ways, the Obama administration should not be idealised. But in many other ways, it has come to symbolise much more.
He has his way with words, but those words can only take effect because they mean so much more and give so much more to the people. They give hope. I find myself moved. Will def post the speech here and give my thoughts on it soon.
An elderly black man was sobbing, saying something about how the inauguration was a reflection of the US being a 'good country'. True emotions poured out. Pain and anguish. The triumph over oppression.
In many ways, the Obama administration should not be idealised. But in many other ways, it has come to symbolise much more.
He has his way with words, but those words can only take effect because they mean so much more and give so much more to the people. They give hope. I find myself moved. Will def post the speech here and give my thoughts on it soon.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Tuesday
IT's just one of those long days when I'm stuck in office while some meeting just refuses to end and I'm left high and dry without any real food cept for a couple of grapes and wasabi pops. not exactly the kind of dinner Jamie would have in mind...
Either way, I'm here.
I started re-reading Adam Zamoyski's Holy Madness: Romantics, Patriots, and Revolutionaries, 1776-1871.
It's everything I expect my first yr module in Oxford to be. Broad-based with a somewhat thematic approach covering lots of ground together with the ability to see trends. It wasn't till I got through the first few pages that I remembered his horrilbly factual ramblings were the reason I stopped halfway the first time. Almost 2 yrs ago in fact - i bought the book in New York and stopped reading soon after I got back. In a way it's a good thing too, cuz I actually know a little bit more now to comprehend whatever he's trying to tell me.
For instance, I managed to get through a good 80% of Tommaso Astarita's Between Salt Water and Holy Water: A History of Southern Italy, which is really REALLY easy to read. It's fascinating, exciting and colorful. He has a lovely writing style. Simple easy to understand prose that captivates like any good novel does. That really contributed much to ameliorate the severe drought in understanding rgrding not just Italy, but also medieval history in general.
And back to Zamoyski. My initial impression was pretty much transfixed on his ability to make a wonderfully exciting era become so placid and boring that I almost fell asleep at my desk (again). Nevertheless, things really picked up towards the chapters on 'Civil Rites' and 'Holy War' where he went rather in-depth into the French Revolution - which is in my opinion is a fascinating epoch. A turning-point in the evolution of humanity.
From what I gather, 'nationalism' then is really the rationale by-product of religion after processing it through the factories of the enlightenment. The desire to supplant the Catholic Church in turn brought about a newfound religiosity in REASON as the ultimate aim and goal in life. This was a process started way back from the renaissance and the two reformations. As of now, religion has fought back but we never replace the role of reason and science in society
- unless you're living in some polygamist sect in the middle of America -
SEA nationalism then is different in that it's leaders aimed to create that kind of emotionale fervour from scratch. in some cases, nationalism = a more refined expression of culture and religion in that particular society. This differs much from that in Europe, in degrees of course. Nationalism, as with many other -isms, was merely layered upon the fabric of society and in many ways became entertwined with its various parts. You can't pick them out easily anymore.
And I'm only in Chapter 7 trying to get through Hungarian nationalism! Got to plough through my details...
I've also unfortunately stopped reading Anton La Guardia's Holy Land Unholy War, which is actually very good but just overflowing with details. It's good journalism. Less boring than academia, but the style of writing gets into you after a while. Good for general knowledge, bad for studying. And yes, it was getting really depressing too.
One of the things that baffles me greatly is the ongoing Israel V Hamas war. Arrogance? Hubris? The belief that they would actually achieve some long-lasting good out of a punitive strike in Gaza? Have they never considered the lives lost, the anger and pain, the possibility of greater support for anti-Israeli movements regardless of the short-term capabilities of Hamas?
One wonders what leaders think. Maybe they don't think at all.
And we all know which one doesn't.
All hands up in favour of the inauguration!
I'm so proud to be alive to witness history in the making. Daunting as it may seem, I hope to place my little and tiny faith in the possibility of Obama making a difference to the ongoing crises. He is no messiah. The least we could do though is to give him a chance.
No more shit from the Whitehouse! That should be our slogan.
Either way, I'm here.
I started re-reading Adam Zamoyski's Holy Madness: Romantics, Patriots, and Revolutionaries, 1776-1871.
It's everything I expect my first yr module in Oxford to be. Broad-based with a somewhat thematic approach covering lots of ground together with the ability to see trends. It wasn't till I got through the first few pages that I remembered his horrilbly factual ramblings were the reason I stopped halfway the first time. Almost 2 yrs ago in fact - i bought the book in New York and stopped reading soon after I got back. In a way it's a good thing too, cuz I actually know a little bit more now to comprehend whatever he's trying to tell me.
For instance, I managed to get through a good 80% of Tommaso Astarita's Between Salt Water and Holy Water: A History of Southern Italy, which is really REALLY easy to read. It's fascinating, exciting and colorful. He has a lovely writing style. Simple easy to understand prose that captivates like any good novel does. That really contributed much to ameliorate the severe drought in understanding rgrding not just Italy, but also medieval history in general.
And back to Zamoyski. My initial impression was pretty much transfixed on his ability to make a wonderfully exciting era become so placid and boring that I almost fell asleep at my desk (again). Nevertheless, things really picked up towards the chapters on 'Civil Rites' and 'Holy War' where he went rather in-depth into the French Revolution - which is in my opinion is a fascinating epoch. A turning-point in the evolution of humanity.
From what I gather, 'nationalism' then is really the rationale by-product of religion after processing it through the factories of the enlightenment. The desire to supplant the Catholic Church in turn brought about a newfound religiosity in REASON as the ultimate aim and goal in life. This was a process started way back from the renaissance and the two reformations. As of now, religion has fought back but we never replace the role of reason and science in society
- unless you're living in some polygamist sect in the middle of America -
SEA nationalism then is different in that it's leaders aimed to create that kind of emotionale fervour from scratch. in some cases, nationalism = a more refined expression of culture and religion in that particular society. This differs much from that in Europe, in degrees of course. Nationalism, as with many other -isms, was merely layered upon the fabric of society and in many ways became entertwined with its various parts. You can't pick them out easily anymore.
And I'm only in Chapter 7 trying to get through Hungarian nationalism! Got to plough through my details...
I've also unfortunately stopped reading Anton La Guardia's Holy Land Unholy War, which is actually very good but just overflowing with details. It's good journalism. Less boring than academia, but the style of writing gets into you after a while. Good for general knowledge, bad for studying. And yes, it was getting really depressing too.
One of the things that baffles me greatly is the ongoing Israel V Hamas war. Arrogance? Hubris? The belief that they would actually achieve some long-lasting good out of a punitive strike in Gaza? Have they never considered the lives lost, the anger and pain, the possibility of greater support for anti-Israeli movements regardless of the short-term capabilities of Hamas?
One wonders what leaders think. Maybe they don't think at all.
And we all know which one doesn't.
All hands up in favour of the inauguration!
I'm so proud to be alive to witness history in the making. Daunting as it may seem, I hope to place my little and tiny faith in the possibility of Obama making a difference to the ongoing crises. He is no messiah. The least we could do though is to give him a chance.
No more shit from the Whitehouse! That should be our slogan.
Monday, January 19, 2009
Betrayed Babies
Betrayed Babies
17 January 09, 3pm
Esplanade Recital Studio
A missed opportunity.
Betrayed Babies is essentially a play about techies acting as actors when none show up for rehearsal, and are of course acted by none other by the techies in Panggung ARTS themselves. It is funny and light-hearted, spoofing the Sandiwara-style of TV dramas, which so happens to be titled ‘Betrayed Babies’ as well, but says little about what ‘family’ really is.
Me: Could you perhaps elaborate on the title ‘Betrayed Babies’? Why did you decide on this?
Director: *Blank look*. Erm… I’ll leave you to make the association…
Sure, I found the humour and the melodrama really funny. I identified with the dynamics of back-stage work. The director cum playwright Aidli Mosbit herself professed that the people at Panggung ARTS were like a family to her – coupled with the somewhat matriarchal production director, the need to balance professionalism with friendships, and so on. She also noted the growing presence of women in backstage work in the Singapore arts scene, which was clearly reflected in this all-female production.
Once you get past the melodrama and the spoofs, you also realise that the play is rather bold in the issues it explores, ranging from lesbianism to pre-marital sex to fuck-buddies, together with a whole slew of lies, and deceit. The portrayal of a retarded-girl being the illegitimate offspring of an ‘ulamma’ and everyone dancing in their prayer outfits was perhaps the more memorable moments of the play which bordered on the blasphemous.
Nevertheless, it wasn’t clear if the play’s focus as a whole was on the life of the backstage crew, or the play that they were acting out. Little on what ‘family’ is was probed or discussed. During the post-show dialogue, they merely reflected on how hard acting really was, and the play seemed only like an avenue for personal exploration. The verdict? The majority would rather continue being techies – safe backstage with fewer chances of screwing up.
With the play acted in Singlish and punctuated with Malay and the occasional Chinese, the play has limited appeal beyond our shores, not to mention those who have never known the existence of Suria, and it is unlikely to even stand a chance in conservative Malaysia. While it was perhaps a learning experience and a brave attempt for the techies of panggung ARTS, it was less so for the audience of the half-filled Esplanade Recital Studio. The girls were having fun, but that’s about all there was.
17 January 09, 3pm
Esplanade Recital Studio
A missed opportunity.
Betrayed Babies is essentially a play about techies acting as actors when none show up for rehearsal, and are of course acted by none other by the techies in Panggung ARTS themselves. It is funny and light-hearted, spoofing the Sandiwara-style of TV dramas, which so happens to be titled ‘Betrayed Babies’ as well, but says little about what ‘family’ really is.
Me: Could you perhaps elaborate on the title ‘Betrayed Babies’? Why did you decide on this?
Director: *Blank look*. Erm… I’ll leave you to make the association…
Sure, I found the humour and the melodrama really funny. I identified with the dynamics of back-stage work. The director cum playwright Aidli Mosbit herself professed that the people at Panggung ARTS were like a family to her – coupled with the somewhat matriarchal production director, the need to balance professionalism with friendships, and so on. She also noted the growing presence of women in backstage work in the Singapore arts scene, which was clearly reflected in this all-female production.
Once you get past the melodrama and the spoofs, you also realise that the play is rather bold in the issues it explores, ranging from lesbianism to pre-marital sex to fuck-buddies, together with a whole slew of lies, and deceit. The portrayal of a retarded-girl being the illegitimate offspring of an ‘ulamma’ and everyone dancing in their prayer outfits was perhaps the more memorable moments of the play which bordered on the blasphemous.
Nevertheless, it wasn’t clear if the play’s focus as a whole was on the life of the backstage crew, or the play that they were acting out. Little on what ‘family’ is was probed or discussed. During the post-show dialogue, they merely reflected on how hard acting really was, and the play seemed only like an avenue for personal exploration. The verdict? The majority would rather continue being techies – safe backstage with fewer chances of screwing up.
With the play acted in Singlish and punctuated with Malay and the occasional Chinese, the play has limited appeal beyond our shores, not to mention those who have never known the existence of Suria, and it is unlikely to even stand a chance in conservative Malaysia. While it was perhaps a learning experience and a brave attempt for the techies of panggung ARTS, it was less so for the audience of the half-filled Esplanade Recital Studio. The girls were having fun, but that’s about all there was.
_father.mother.dog
_father.mother.dog/
16 January 09, 8pm
Seminar Room, National Museum of Singapore
Family just is.
I absolutely loved _father.mother.dog/. It bedazzles. It is provocative, eccentric, disturbing and yet enthralling. Humour is blended with tension, angst and resent, strewn in with a dash of Freud and a pick of the future. Amongst all the plays in the Fringe Festival that I watched, it was perhaps the only one which dared to portray a vision for a radically different notion of ‘family’, and boldly questioned human nature itself.
--
FMD is a male-oriented play.
Three men dominate - a renowned unmarried French professor with 4 daughters who have 6 mothers, an Italian manager representing the ‘classical’ notion of family, and the German researcher/protagonist who is obsessed about finding a solution to the problem of ‘the family’.
The beginning was abrupt and disturbing. I have no inkling whatsoever about German absurdist theatre (think Bertolt Brecht) apart from the groans from my Theatre-studies friends in NUS, but starting of with a power-point presentation titled ‘Research Project on the Prospect of New Family Structures by The Institute for the Studies on Marriage and Family Matters’ in a Seminar Room, clearly set my head wheeling, and I seriously thought that the Italian guy donning a beekeeper suit humming a strange Italian tune and playing with honey whilst walking around was going to seriously hamper my ability to write this review.
Nevertheless, it turned out to be a wonderful experience.
While the actors professed to have toned down the stereotyping for their first non-European audience, the characters nevertheless each represent a prototype of their nationality (together with friendly jibes that their stereotypes). Though the play leaves little room for real character development, it skilfully explores the question of human nature successfully.
Schneider is the gung-ho German social scientist whose ultimate aim in this project is to create a ‘new family structure’. This very aim and desire itself however suggests something of a darker nature, as he seems almost bent on freeing himself from the bonds of familial ties. Yet the painful dramatic irony is his susceptibility to it. In his lecture he argues that parenthood is delinquency and urges his audience against the ‘dumbmastification’ of humanity. Yet, he reminisces over a few baby toys (presumably his), lunges maniacally towards a ‘father-figure’ trying to shake him off, and writhes in angst, horror and ultimately pain as his creation refuses to acknowledge him as father.
French prof rips off shirt exclaiming: Schneider! Be a man! Run into me like a cannonball! I will hold you!
Schneider: ahhhhhh!
French prof: It’s ok Schneider. Papa’s got you. It’s ok… And now I will let you down. You can come down now. (German guy climbs onto him). Erm… Schneider?
Towards the end, the play even bordered along horror, continuing the tradition of Shelley in Frankenstein, Huxley in Brave New World and yes – even Hollywood (The Island). A blister is presented (uncannily similar to the ‘embryos’ in The Island really…) with a creature inside - a human without any notion of familial bonds. The offspring of Schneider, but hardly his son.
I couldn’t help but feel immensely disturbed when the blister was finally unwrapped at the end, revealing the voodoo doll-like robot thing which is supposedly the end-point and pinnacle of evolution and humanity. Sure - the thing is cute with his blue-pin eyes, its whirling heads and limbs, and it’s Bart impression of ‘eat my shorts’, but it shocks me at the same time. It really does. Ultimately, the play doesn’t explain why familial ties are the way they are – indeed they can’t. They just are, according to the Italian. But that becomes the strength of the play because it indirectly forces me to consider whether our notion of family is really inherent to us. A prerequisite to being human.
I shall not dive into a discussion of philosophy now, but it would be interesting to note John Locke’s theory of the Tabula Rasa – the blank slate (The actors themselves also did a crazy amount of research prior to the production and I’m sure that they would have come across it). Are all humans born a blank slate, waiting to be filled with knowledge via the senses, or are certain things inbred and born within us like our notion of family, love, ties and kinship? Even the promiscuous French professor has a very conservative notion of family - almost sobbing visibly upon hearing his son having done well in school. Having come from an incomplete family myself, it makes me wonder if this is an inevitable truth.
And then they were the bees.
Bees just are. They don’t ask why they exist or why they carry out that particular function. They just do it. Kinship, is merely a natural impulse and instinct. The instinct to produce honey for instance. At the moment of ‘revelation’ of the creature, the beekeeper guy runs in panicking. All the bees had left. No drones, no queen, no nothing. While the playwright had drawn inspiration from the recent news of the decreasing number of bees in America, it also served as a strong and resounding parallel to the action of the main plot. There, the scientists had found a new possibility of humanity – the abolishment of the family in itself. The bees similarly, seemed to have broken away from the very ties which kept them together in the first place. Two disturbing phenomena mirror and illuminate each other at the same time. No bees no honey. No family no love?
It would be impossible to cover all the issues brought up by the play in this article itself. You have to watch it yourself. I liked how the actors were inspired to do this play not only to bring awareness to the pressing issue of population decline in their homeland, but also their own personal journey to fatherhood as they all become fathers for the very first time. The fact that this performance was also the first time the actors did it in English instead of German to a non-European audience also heightens the universality of the issues discussed and presented. Ania, a German lady I spoke to, noted its pertinence to her being a German.
It’s relevance to Singaporeans? During the post-show dialogue, one of the actors noted chancing upon the ‘Romancing Singapore’ website while doing up research on Singapore – which was promptly noted by a member of the audience to be ‘a national embarrassment’. Nevertheless, it does clearly exemplify the difficulty of even breaking out of that ‘classical’ idea of a family – father.mother.child. The furthest we have come to, is perhaps only father.mother.dog.
Unfortunate? I leave that to you.
16 January 09, 8pm
Seminar Room, National Museum of Singapore
Family just is.
I absolutely loved _father.mother.dog/. It bedazzles. It is provocative, eccentric, disturbing and yet enthralling. Humour is blended with tension, angst and resent, strewn in with a dash of Freud and a pick of the future. Amongst all the plays in the Fringe Festival that I watched, it was perhaps the only one which dared to portray a vision for a radically different notion of ‘family’, and boldly questioned human nature itself.
--
FMD is a male-oriented play.
Three men dominate - a renowned unmarried French professor with 4 daughters who have 6 mothers, an Italian manager representing the ‘classical’ notion of family, and the German researcher/protagonist who is obsessed about finding a solution to the problem of ‘the family’.
The beginning was abrupt and disturbing. I have no inkling whatsoever about German absurdist theatre (think Bertolt Brecht) apart from the groans from my Theatre-studies friends in NUS, but starting of with a power-point presentation titled ‘Research Project on the Prospect of New Family Structures by The Institute for the Studies on Marriage and Family Matters’ in a Seminar Room, clearly set my head wheeling, and I seriously thought that the Italian guy donning a beekeeper suit humming a strange Italian tune and playing with honey whilst walking around was going to seriously hamper my ability to write this review.
Nevertheless, it turned out to be a wonderful experience.
While the actors professed to have toned down the stereotyping for their first non-European audience, the characters nevertheless each represent a prototype of their nationality (together with friendly jibes that their stereotypes). Though the play leaves little room for real character development, it skilfully explores the question of human nature successfully.
Schneider is the gung-ho German social scientist whose ultimate aim in this project is to create a ‘new family structure’. This very aim and desire itself however suggests something of a darker nature, as he seems almost bent on freeing himself from the bonds of familial ties. Yet the painful dramatic irony is his susceptibility to it. In his lecture he argues that parenthood is delinquency and urges his audience against the ‘dumbmastification’ of humanity. Yet, he reminisces over a few baby toys (presumably his), lunges maniacally towards a ‘father-figure’ trying to shake him off, and writhes in angst, horror and ultimately pain as his creation refuses to acknowledge him as father.
French prof rips off shirt exclaiming: Schneider! Be a man! Run into me like a cannonball! I will hold you!
Schneider: ahhhhhh!
French prof: It’s ok Schneider. Papa’s got you. It’s ok… And now I will let you down. You can come down now. (German guy climbs onto him). Erm… Schneider?
Towards the end, the play even bordered along horror, continuing the tradition of Shelley in Frankenstein, Huxley in Brave New World and yes – even Hollywood (The Island). A blister is presented (uncannily similar to the ‘embryos’ in The Island really…) with a creature inside - a human without any notion of familial bonds. The offspring of Schneider, but hardly his son.
I couldn’t help but feel immensely disturbed when the blister was finally unwrapped at the end, revealing the voodoo doll-like robot thing which is supposedly the end-point and pinnacle of evolution and humanity. Sure - the thing is cute with his blue-pin eyes, its whirling heads and limbs, and it’s Bart impression of ‘eat my shorts’, but it shocks me at the same time. It really does. Ultimately, the play doesn’t explain why familial ties are the way they are – indeed they can’t. They just are, according to the Italian. But that becomes the strength of the play because it indirectly forces me to consider whether our notion of family is really inherent to us. A prerequisite to being human.
I shall not dive into a discussion of philosophy now, but it would be interesting to note John Locke’s theory of the Tabula Rasa – the blank slate (The actors themselves also did a crazy amount of research prior to the production and I’m sure that they would have come across it). Are all humans born a blank slate, waiting to be filled with knowledge via the senses, or are certain things inbred and born within us like our notion of family, love, ties and kinship? Even the promiscuous French professor has a very conservative notion of family - almost sobbing visibly upon hearing his son having done well in school. Having come from an incomplete family myself, it makes me wonder if this is an inevitable truth.
And then they were the bees.
Bees just are. They don’t ask why they exist or why they carry out that particular function. They just do it. Kinship, is merely a natural impulse and instinct. The instinct to produce honey for instance. At the moment of ‘revelation’ of the creature, the beekeeper guy runs in panicking. All the bees had left. No drones, no queen, no nothing. While the playwright had drawn inspiration from the recent news of the decreasing number of bees in America, it also served as a strong and resounding parallel to the action of the main plot. There, the scientists had found a new possibility of humanity – the abolishment of the family in itself. The bees similarly, seemed to have broken away from the very ties which kept them together in the first place. Two disturbing phenomena mirror and illuminate each other at the same time. No bees no honey. No family no love?
It would be impossible to cover all the issues brought up by the play in this article itself. You have to watch it yourself. I liked how the actors were inspired to do this play not only to bring awareness to the pressing issue of population decline in their homeland, but also their own personal journey to fatherhood as they all become fathers for the very first time. The fact that this performance was also the first time the actors did it in English instead of German to a non-European audience also heightens the universality of the issues discussed and presented. Ania, a German lady I spoke to, noted its pertinence to her being a German.
It’s relevance to Singaporeans? During the post-show dialogue, one of the actors noted chancing upon the ‘Romancing Singapore’ website while doing up research on Singapore – which was promptly noted by a member of the audience to be ‘a national embarrassment’. Nevertheless, it does clearly exemplify the difficulty of even breaking out of that ‘classical’ idea of a family – father.mother.child. The furthest we have come to, is perhaps only father.mother.dog.
Unfortunate? I leave that to you.
Sunday, January 18, 2009
On the brink of history
One of the few articles actually written by Anderson. Catch the inauguration LIVE this coming tuesday the 20th of Jan! It promises to be a historic moment. I'm proud and excited to be alive to witness it.
Anderson Cooper
Searching the paper on the way to Washington, looking for news of the inaugural, the headlines warn of what lies ahead: “Big firms Deepen Job, Wage Cuts.” “Circuit City To Liquidate.” The storm clouds are all around us.
The challenges Barack Obama is about to take on are overwhelming, but not, of course, unprecedented. Abraham Lincoln took office with fears the country itself was on the brink of dissolution. Fears for his safety were so great he had to sneak through Baltimore on board his train. Maryland, like Virginia, was a slave state.
FDR’s first inaugural was in the midst of the Depression. 1933. Relief would not come for many years more. So, as Barack Obama heads to Washington today, on a train trip that will re-trace some of Lincoln’s own train journey, he shoulders a great burden, but one past presidents have as well. He arrives in Washington this evening with a groundswell of public support. More than Clinton did, more than Reagan.
On the plane heading to Washington this morning, there is excitement. People pose for pictures with one another, wanting to document, savor each moment of their journey to history. These next few days, are ones without politics, without labels, without divisions. That is how it should be at least. We are a young country, one that rejected the traditions of the past in order to form itself anew.
When we inaugurate a president, we celebrate our youth, our democracy, our vitality, our ability to transfer power peacefully. Today, and in the days to come, we pause on the brink of history, looking forward, and looking back, and we repeat the traditions which we ourselves created after our independence.
Traditions which remind us that we have faced worse problems in the past, and we have succeeded. We walk in the path of those who have come before us. Like the President-Elect, we do not make this journey on our own.
--
A rather disparaging remark abt CNN brainwashing the public was posted in the AC360 blog. That guy is probably a Republican sore loser whom I have little sympathy for... I think the world, and America especially, deserves to get excited about somebody after 8 years of failure. And yes - the very same nation which voted him into office in the first place and got all excited and patriotic about the 2 wars. Brainwashing? Some how no one has admitted to be victim or culprit as yet. History will tell.
Will post my review of Father.Mother.Dog and Betrayed Babies soon.
Monday, January 12, 2009
Sunday blahness
Cleaned ou my cupboards today. that's only a fifth of my entire room and it took the whole afternn alrdy. At least the room feels clean already.
All KI students sld read this blog entry by Chris Blattman: http://chrisblattman.blogspot.com/2009/01/what-do-marx-freud-and-adler-have-in.html
And here's a random love poem by Pushkin.
Dear Chains
Rose-maiden, no, I do not quarrel
With these dear chains, they don't demean.
The nightingale embushed in laurel,
The sylvan singers' feathered queen,
Does she not bear the same sweet plight?
Near the proud rose's beauty dwelling,
And with her tender anthems thrilling
The dusk of a voluptuous night.
All KI students sld read this blog entry by Chris Blattman: http://chrisblattman.blogspot.com/2009/01/what-do-marx-freud-and-adler-have-in.html
And here's a random love poem by Pushkin.
Dear Chains
Rose-maiden, no, I do not quarrel
With these dear chains, they don't demean.
The nightingale embushed in laurel,
The sylvan singers' feathered queen,
Does she not bear the same sweet plight?
Near the proud rose's beauty dwelling,
And with her tender anthems thrilling
The dusk of a voluptuous night.
Sunday, January 11, 2009
Peter Bergen
And I love his commentaries. Here are the main points taken straight out of the article:
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/01/09/bergen.war.obama/index.html
--
First, the United States must lower the temperature in the Muslim world to help win back the "swing voters" in the Islamic world who turned against America and provide passive support to al Qaeda.
A second strategic doctrine should be: first, do no harm. Its rationale lies in the several major strategic weaknesses from which al Qaeda and its associated groups suffer.
The third doctrine is to disaggregate our enemies. The United States must not fall into bin Laden's rhetorical trap of believing there is a monolithic global jihadist militant movement united against it. The United States should be splintering, buying off and co-opting its enemies -- the kind of policy that severely damaged al Qaeda in Iraq.
The fourth doctrine is to approach the war on al Qaeda and allied groups as a global counterinsurgency campaign, something that thoughtful students of the global war on terror like the Australian anthropologist/infantry officer Lt. Col. David Kilcullen and Bruce Hoffman, the dean of terrorism studies, have advocated for years.
Finally, promoting more open societies in the Muslim world will undermine the jihadist terrorists. It is no accident that so many members of jihadist terror organizations come from countries such as Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Algeria and Egypt -- countries ruled by authoritarian regimes.
Peter Bergen is CNN's national security analyst and a fellow at the New America Foundation in Washington and at New York University's Center on Law and Security. His most recent book is "The Osama bin Laden I Know: An Oral History of al Qaeda's Leader." This is the second of two commentaries on the war on terror. Read the first piece here
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/01/09/bergen.war.obama/index.html
--
First, the United States must lower the temperature in the Muslim world to help win back the "swing voters" in the Islamic world who turned against America and provide passive support to al Qaeda.
A second strategic doctrine should be: first, do no harm. Its rationale lies in the several major strategic weaknesses from which al Qaeda and its associated groups suffer.
The third doctrine is to disaggregate our enemies. The United States must not fall into bin Laden's rhetorical trap of believing there is a monolithic global jihadist militant movement united against it. The United States should be splintering, buying off and co-opting its enemies -- the kind of policy that severely damaged al Qaeda in Iraq.
The fourth doctrine is to approach the war on al Qaeda and allied groups as a global counterinsurgency campaign, something that thoughtful students of the global war on terror like the Australian anthropologist/infantry officer Lt. Col. David Kilcullen and Bruce Hoffman, the dean of terrorism studies, have advocated for years.
Finally, promoting more open societies in the Muslim world will undermine the jihadist terrorists. It is no accident that so many members of jihadist terror organizations come from countries such as Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Algeria and Egypt -- countries ruled by authoritarian regimes.
Peter Bergen is CNN's national security analyst and a fellow at the New America Foundation in Washington and at New York University's Center on Law and Security. His most recent book is "The Osama bin Laden I Know: An Oral History of al Qaeda's Leader." This is the second of two commentaries on the war on terror. Read the first piece here
What the Box really means
We Live in a Box by Irfan Kasban (Singapore)
10 January 09, 3pm, The Substation Theatre
WE LIVE IN A BOX is Irfan Kasban’s debut English play which was held at the Substation. The small enclosed space provided by the Guinness Theatre clearly fits the bill as suggested by the title, though somebody has got to do something about those darned seats. If you are reading this, please purchase more fizzy drinks from the vending machine at the entrance to help the Substation.
Sypnosis: WE LIVE IN A BOX is concerned about the concept of a home, and is obsessed about the use of space, its meaning, the dialogue between a house, home and its occupants, and ultimately questioning the idea of relationships. Two plots run parallel to each other which are ultimately related – the soul and mind of the foetus, and the drama of its parents in the ‘outside’ world.
SPACE. The central focus of the play indeed. After reminding myself of the dangers of the ‘economy-class’ syndrome, I got used to the dingy dark room (I use this term literally here for now…) I found myself in with eccentrically stringed light-bulbs and regularly placed white strips on the floor illuminated by incandescent UV lamps at the side making for a more ghostly version of life-size chess playing.
Before entering though, a Philips light-bulb was placed into my hand. The playwright himself, now part of the play, collected the light-bulbs from the audience after we seated, gingerly Ding ding! Symbolism number ONE).
Symbolism is one of Irfan’s strong points indeed. As spoken by himself during the short dialogue session after the play, he made conscious use of multi-layered symbolism throughout the entire play. Light-bulbs are themselves fragile, just like life. The gas within it is necessary to sustain the burning of the filament. Break it and it dies. Just as when you abort a foetus, you break it away from the confines of the womb. A mind without a soul is not a mind, so on and so forth. The use of light in a dark and claustrophobic space similarly engages the audience like mayflies. They represent hope, ideals, dreams, and life itself. Yet even so, the sudden brightening of a darkroom (here meaning the room used to develop photographs…) destroys the dreams of the female lead of finally unlocking the lost memories of her past as she clutches at the now messed up roll of film, just as it illuminates that of her husband who now finally has the child to make his family and home complete.
The space provided by the theatre was also easily transformed with gestures and sound – yet another of his strong points. The crowded MRT noted by the audience with the simple raising of the hand to the bulb wires. The familiar rustling of people, background humming, the doors, the way Irfan mimicked cordial and civil conversations, made for effective drama. I was also particularly impressed by how the audience become part of the scene as ‘passengers’ within the make-believe MRT itself. Reality and fantasy collided. We felt the awkwardness and uneasiness of the female protagonist as she attempts to evade the truth, just as we shared her disdain for the embarrassing outbursts of her long-lost classmate. That was the scene which arguably made the play. In addition, the effective use of dual simultaneous conversation to evoke tension with constant and repeated alliteration heightened the climax of the play and thereby demonstrated Irfan’s immense potential for English plays in the near future. I loved the music, intoxicating and still playing non-stop in my head, and also the avant-garde like video clips. The other dramatic moments – the dropping of the film, or the phone – were but simple tricks.
Nevertheless, the vivacity of the angel, the stoic awkwardness of the soul-figure, and the comic presentation of the angel Michael via a persistent and annoying male Indian receptionist caused the play to oscillate violently between a philosophical and incomprehensibly farcical tone. It wasn’t set right at the beginning. Although Irfan explained the presentation of the angels during the dialogue, it didn’t seem clearly self-evident. Perhaps the few raw, unpolished segments which were overdone in the play and particularly got under my skin…
ENTRAPMENT. Nevertheless, WE LIVE IN A BOX was a brave attempt. The failure to present a radical revision of the meaning of family and home, therefore captures the essence of living within a ‘box’. You cannot escape the box, but you can make it better, familiar. ‘Home’ is the familiar. Home is also the box. The box is reality. The box also represents the mindsets, the ideologies and beliefs that we are trapped in. We are trapped in reality. Hence, the dissipation of happiness and the possibility of any relationship for the protagonist at the end forces audiences to consider the belief in the impossibility of having a real ‘family’ and ‘home’ without the presence of a child. The protagonist’s marriage fails due to the inability, and ultimate refusal, to conceive. Similarly, the soul-figure is ultimately trapped within the confines of the mind even as he tries to make its menacing surroundings ‘home’ and cannot escape his impending death.
All in all, this kudos to Irfan for a job well-done! I look forward to his other plays in the future with much anticipation, as he finds himself and his style within ‘the box’.
10 January 09, 3pm, The Substation Theatre
WE LIVE IN A BOX is Irfan Kasban’s debut English play which was held at the Substation. The small enclosed space provided by the Guinness Theatre clearly fits the bill as suggested by the title, though somebody has got to do something about those darned seats. If you are reading this, please purchase more fizzy drinks from the vending machine at the entrance to help the Substation.
Sypnosis: WE LIVE IN A BOX is concerned about the concept of a home, and is obsessed about the use of space, its meaning, the dialogue between a house, home and its occupants, and ultimately questioning the idea of relationships. Two plots run parallel to each other which are ultimately related – the soul and mind of the foetus, and the drama of its parents in the ‘outside’ world.
SPACE. The central focus of the play indeed. After reminding myself of the dangers of the ‘economy-class’ syndrome, I got used to the dingy dark room (I use this term literally here for now…) I found myself in with eccentrically stringed light-bulbs and regularly placed white strips on the floor illuminated by incandescent UV lamps at the side making for a more ghostly version of life-size chess playing.
Before entering though, a Philips light-bulb was placed into my hand. The playwright himself, now part of the play, collected the light-bulbs from the audience after we seated, gingerly Ding ding! Symbolism number ONE).
Symbolism is one of Irfan’s strong points indeed. As spoken by himself during the short dialogue session after the play, he made conscious use of multi-layered symbolism throughout the entire play. Light-bulbs are themselves fragile, just like life. The gas within it is necessary to sustain the burning of the filament. Break it and it dies. Just as when you abort a foetus, you break it away from the confines of the womb. A mind without a soul is not a mind, so on and so forth. The use of light in a dark and claustrophobic space similarly engages the audience like mayflies. They represent hope, ideals, dreams, and life itself. Yet even so, the sudden brightening of a darkroom (here meaning the room used to develop photographs…) destroys the dreams of the female lead of finally unlocking the lost memories of her past as she clutches at the now messed up roll of film, just as it illuminates that of her husband who now finally has the child to make his family and home complete.
The space provided by the theatre was also easily transformed with gestures and sound – yet another of his strong points. The crowded MRT noted by the audience with the simple raising of the hand to the bulb wires. The familiar rustling of people, background humming, the doors, the way Irfan mimicked cordial and civil conversations, made for effective drama. I was also particularly impressed by how the audience become part of the scene as ‘passengers’ within the make-believe MRT itself. Reality and fantasy collided. We felt the awkwardness and uneasiness of the female protagonist as she attempts to evade the truth, just as we shared her disdain for the embarrassing outbursts of her long-lost classmate. That was the scene which arguably made the play. In addition, the effective use of dual simultaneous conversation to evoke tension with constant and repeated alliteration heightened the climax of the play and thereby demonstrated Irfan’s immense potential for English plays in the near future. I loved the music, intoxicating and still playing non-stop in my head, and also the avant-garde like video clips. The other dramatic moments – the dropping of the film, or the phone – were but simple tricks.
Nevertheless, the vivacity of the angel, the stoic awkwardness of the soul-figure, and the comic presentation of the angel Michael via a persistent and annoying male Indian receptionist caused the play to oscillate violently between a philosophical and incomprehensibly farcical tone. It wasn’t set right at the beginning. Although Irfan explained the presentation of the angels during the dialogue, it didn’t seem clearly self-evident. Perhaps the few raw, unpolished segments which were overdone in the play and particularly got under my skin…
ENTRAPMENT. Nevertheless, WE LIVE IN A BOX was a brave attempt. The failure to present a radical revision of the meaning of family and home, therefore captures the essence of living within a ‘box’. You cannot escape the box, but you can make it better, familiar. ‘Home’ is the familiar. Home is also the box. The box is reality. The box also represents the mindsets, the ideologies and beliefs that we are trapped in. We are trapped in reality. Hence, the dissipation of happiness and the possibility of any relationship for the protagonist at the end forces audiences to consider the belief in the impossibility of having a real ‘family’ and ‘home’ without the presence of a child. The protagonist’s marriage fails due to the inability, and ultimate refusal, to conceive. Similarly, the soul-figure is ultimately trapped within the confines of the mind even as he tries to make its menacing surroundings ‘home’ and cannot escape his impending death.
All in all, this kudos to Irfan for a job well-done! I look forward to his other plays in the future with much anticipation, as he finds himself and his style within ‘the box’.
Why the crisis in Gaza is happening
Taken from the AC360 blog again
http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2009/01/09/crisis-in-gaza-why-is-this-happening/
Of course, its not perfect. There's more to the history, but the point is clear - how far back can the blame go?
Dave SchechterCNN Senior National Editor
Any attempt to answer the question “why is this happening?” — this effort included — will be found wanting by supporters of both Israel and the Palestinians, who will decry omissions of history, over-simplification, lack of sufficient context and invalidation of truths they hold to be self-evident.
Nonetheless, for those not steeped in the minutiae of the conflict, a guide for the perplexed.
There are no good dates left on the calendar.
That’s been my line for years about the Israel-Palestinian conflict.
By now every square on the calendar can be checked off as the date when one side committed what the other considers to be an atrocity.
(For purposes of this piece, we’ll use a definition of atrocity from the dictionary on my desk: “An act of vicious cruelty, esp. the killing of unarmed people.”) There is no black-and-white, only shades of gray.
That is my other line about the Israel-Palestinian conflict.
The hard-core on both sides, of course, see matters in absolute terms.
When viewed as a zero-sum game, in which what one gains is offset by what another loses, compromise is difficult, if not impossible. The first thing to keep in mind is that there are two narratives at play, narratives that began thousands of years ago.
It’s as if an Israeli vehicle collided with a Palestinian vehicle but the drivers steadfastly maintain radically different versions of what happened, of who did what to whom.
And there often is little respect for the viewpoint of the other.
The storyteller Noa Baum, who performs a piece she calls “A Land Twice Promised,” in which she intertwines the stories of Israeli and Palestinian women, puts it this way on her website: “I believe that at the heart of this conflict are two parallel narratives of two national movements struggling to gain sovereignty over the same piece of land. This conflict is characterized by endless layers of memories of pain, injustice and victimization. At the same time there is a lack of listening and no willingness to legitimize the narrative of the other side. I believe that acknowledgement of the other’s story is the first step toward creating dialogue and relationship building, which is the foundation for healing and peace - the only alternative to the spiraling vortex of violence.” Right now we are in that “spiraling vortex of violence.”
Why is this happening?
History can be a guide, but history is in the eye of the beholder. How far back do you want to go?
In the Bible, Abraham’s wife Sarah was barren and he fathered a son, Ishmael, by Hagar, who was Sarah’s handmaiden (and depending on the interpretation, a gift from an Egyptian Pharaoh).
Fourteen years later, the story goes, Sarah became pregnant and bore Abraham another son, Isaac.
The book of Genesis tells believers that God commanded Abraham to expel Hagar and Ishmael, but promised to make a great nation of their people.
Isaac’s people became the Jews; Ishmael’s the Arabs and Muslims.
Too far back?
At the end of the 1800s, European Jews fleeing persecution began arriving in the land of Zion (ergo, Zionists) seeking to establish a Jewish homeland in “Eretz Israel,” the land of Israel, the soil of their ancestors.
A people without a land for a land without people.
Except, of course, that wasn’t the case.
While there had remained a relatively small Jewish presence in the land called Palestine, the newcomers returned “home” and found there a much larger number of Ishmael’s descendants with a claim to the same soil. Still too far back?
In 1947, as the British sought to extricate themselves from the land they took in war from the Ottoman Turks, the fledgling United Nations offered the original two-state solution.
At the time the population in the affected area was roughly two-thirds Arab, one-third Jewish.
The Jews were unhappy with their allotment (a majority of the land but much of it in the Negev Desert) but accepted the proposal.
Arab leaders unhappy with their portion rejected both the partition plan and the idea of an eventual Jewish nation in Palestine.
In 1948, Israel declared its independence, followed almost immediately by war with the Arab nations, in which Israel captured far more land than had been allotted in the U.N. plan.
What the Jews celebrate, the Palestinians call the “nakba,” or catastrophe.
In the months leading up to the war, several hundred thousand Arabs fled their homes, beginning the refugee issue that persists today.
Debate continues over the degree to which they were forced out by the Jews or encouraged by their own leaders to leave, expecting to return when the Jews were defeated.
In the months and years following the war, several hundred thousand Jews left their homes in Arab nations, the majority settling in Israel. Not recent enough?
In the 1967 “Six-Day War,” Israel conquered the Sinai Peninsula, the Gaza strip, the West Bank (as in the West Bank of the Jordan River), the eastern half of Jerusalem and the Golan Heights. (For purposes of this piece, we’ll call the Gaza Strip “Gaza,” as distinct from Gaza City.) Egypt had controlled the Gaza since 1948. Now it became Israel’s headache.
In a relatively small strip of land along the Mediterranean Sea (25 miles long and 4-7 miles wide, slightly more than twice the size of Washington, D.C.) was a rapidly growing Arab population (then approximately 280,000, now an estimated 1.5 million people), living in what politely could be referred to as squalor.
Gaza, as densely crowded a piece of real estate as you will find on this planet, has been a boiling cauldron. That squalor is the enduring memory of my first visit to Gaza more than 20 years ago.
Sewage running down gutters in alleys and streets.
People crammed into makeshift housing that became permanent over time.
A hospital operating without air conditioning in stifling heat and without window screens to keep out flies.
One prominent family living in palatial surroundings less than a stone’s throw from abject poverty.
My favorite metaphor for Gaza was the rusting freighter then stuck and decaying some 100 yards off the coast of the Al-Shati refugee camp. Over the years, the leaders of Arab and Muslim nations have used protests about the plight of the Palestinians as a convenient way to let their populace blow off steam over unrelated domestic issues.
The Palestinians have reason to feel used, if not betrayed, by some of their brethren.
Expressions of this sentiment have been heard in recent days from a frustrated population in Gaza and echoed by Hezbollah’s leadership in Lebanon and the authors of opinion pieces in the Arab press.
Iran, which is Islamic but not Arab, supports both Hamas and Hezbollah, the Lebanon-based Islamic political and military organization that fought a 2006 war with Israel.
Israel’s vaunted military may not be trying to compensate for its perceived “loss” in Lebanon but in Gaza surely has implemented solutions to the harsh lessons learned fighting Hezbollah.
It’s that influence of Iran through Hamas and Hezbollah that makes the rulers of numerous Arab nations nervous about Islamic movements gaining an even greater foothold than they already have in their own countries.
The global affairs think tank Stratfor summarized this point: “With somewhat limited options to contain Iranian expansion in the region, the Arab states ironically are looking to Israel to ensure that Hamas remains boxed in. So, while on the surface it may seem that the entire Arab world is convulsing with anger at Israel’s offensive against Hamas, a closer look reveals that the view from the Arab palace is quite different from the view on the Arab street.” And now we reach the year 2009.
Three years after forcing religious-based settlers to leave Gaza, Israel maintains tight control of the crossing points on land, the seas offshore and the skies above.
Israel is at war against Hamas, a Sunni Muslim organization created more than 20 years ago; its name an acronym for the Arabic words “Harakat Al-Muqawama Al-Islamia” meaning Islamic Resistance Movement.
Hamas is a political party and provides social services in Gaza.
It also has a military component.
Israel and the United States are among those who consider Hamas to be a terrorist organization.
Hamas has taken credit (a more boastful stance than a mere claim of responsibility) for suicide bombings that have killed hundreds of Israelis.
Hamas also has fired several thousand rockets and mortars into Southern Israel during the past several years.
The rockets are crude by modern military standards, though Israel says that Iran has given Hamas rockets with longer range and greater accuracy. An Israeli blockade on relief supplies failed to pressure Hamas into halting rocket attacks.
But it did give Palestinians the chance to link Israel’s tactics to the Holocaust by calling the blockade “the siege of the Gaza ghetto,” a barely veiled reference to the Nazi siege of the Jewish ghetto in Warsaw.
Israel and Hamas each say the other’s actions precipitated the collapse a couple of weeks ago of a temporary truce brokered by Egypt.
After declaring the “tadiyeh” no longer in effect, Hamas stepped up rocket attacks that had tapered off during those six months.
Israel decided that it no longer could tolerate 1.5 million of its citizens living in fear.
Israel struck first from the air and then on land.
Palestinians accuse Israel of “genocide” and “ethnic cleansing.”
Israelis are offended by the linguistic linkage to the Holocaust and point to language such as this from Hamas’ 1988 convenant: “Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it.” Israel contends that while its military tries to limit civilian casualties, Hamas fires rockets from residential neighborhoods and the grounds of schools and other institutions, using the local population as “human flak jackets,” Chemi Shalev wrote in the newspaper Israel Hayom.
Did Hamas underestimate Israel’s willingness to hit and hit hard or count on that response?
From an Israeli perspective, Hamas is willing to suffer mass casualties among the Palestinians if it mobilizes world opinion against Israel.
Speaking in Damascus, Hamas official Moussa abu Marzouk told a reporter from New American Media that “When Israel uses these means, it doesn’t decrease support for Hamas. It accomplishes the opposite. The popularity of Hamas has increased sharply among the Palestinian people and people throughout the Muslim world.”
From a Palestinian perspective, the scope of Israel’s air and ground assault and the mounting toll of dead and wounded in Gaza is a disproportionate response to the firing of rockets and mortars that have killed and injured a relatively small number of Israelis.
In the Israeli newspaper Yediot Aharanoth, Gilad Sharon offered no sympathy: “There are those who say that we are striking at civilians and a population in Gaza that is not to blame,” he wrote, adding , “This is self-righteousness; we did not elect Hamas, the public in Gaza did, in droves.If they are suffering, they should elect someone better next time”.
Writing in the Arab News, Osama al Sharif lamented: “Israel’s killing machine could not be reined in, and as diplomacy stumbled, or was intentionally aborted, anger and calls for action swept through world capitals. The show of solidarity with the Palestinians, and in particular with the people of Gaza, was universal in spite of a brittle resolve of governments, especially members of the Security Council.” The past, the present and now, the future.
Barack Obama will be sworn in as the U.S. president on January 20.
Playing the “one President at a time” card, President-elect Obama has held his tongue thus far, but promises to have much to say once in office.
Despite reiterating his support for Israel (a contentious issue during the campaign) there is wariness in Israel about how the new President Obama will handle the intractable problem that has bedeviled his predecessors.
If only in the interest of getting off on a positive foot, might Israel consider concluding its current Gaza campaign before the Oval Office changes hands? President George Bush has been an outspoken friend of Israel, supportive of the Palestinian National Authority and critical throughout of Hamas.
Many Israelis and Palestinians alike were disappointed by the level of U.S. activity (or inactivity, if you choose) in American efforts to resolve the conflict during most of his eight-year administration.
Having watched the failure of President Bill Clinton’s heated Camp David diplomacy, the White House initially allowed that pot to simmer on a back burner.
Toward the end of his administration, President Bush spoke perhaps too optimistically about Israel and the Palestinians concluding an agreement before he left office.
“I was the first American President to call for a Palestinian state, and building support for the two-state solution has been one of the highest priorities of my Presidency. To earn the trust of Israeli leaders, we made it clear that no Palestinian state would be born of terror,” he said in a speech delivered in December.
Looking the future, President Bush predicted, “The day will come when people from Cairo and Riyadh to Baghdad and Beirut to Damascus and Tehran live in free and independent societies, bound together by ties of diplomacy, tourism, and trade.”
“The day will come when al Qaeda, Hezbollah, and Hamas are marginalized and then wither away, as Muslims across the region realize the emptiness of the terrorists’ vision and the injustice of their cause,” he said. President Obama will be an interested spectator when Israel goes to the polls on February 10 to elect a new Knesset, its parliament.
Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, Defense Minister Ehud Barak and former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu head the slates of the three parties expected to gain the most seats, though whichever party garners the most seats likely will have to form a coalition government that includes smaller parties.
With the Israeli military at war neither Livni nor Barak (the Israeli Prime Minister at those failed Camp David negotiations) wants to appear soft when most segments of the Israeli public back the campaign against Hamas and an election battle looms with the decidedly hawkish Netanyahu.
Meanwhile, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas could call for elections this spring that would pit his more secular Fatah movement against the Islamist Hamas.
It was Hamas’ stunning (to the United States, if not also Israel) victory in the 2006 elections that led to the current situation in which Abbas and Fatah control the West Bank while Hamas rules in Gaza.
The U.S. and Israel would like Abbas and Fatah to extend their governance to include Gaza, but there is no money to be made betting on that outcome. Just as the Jews achieved their dream of a national homeland, the Palestinians yearn for a nationality to call their own.
But the past (how far back do you want to do?) years have embittered Israelis toward Palestinians and Palestinians toward Israelis.
Generations have been born and grown up and grown old knowing no other reality.
Until that cycle ends, there won’t be many “good” dates on the calendar.
http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2009/01/09/crisis-in-gaza-why-is-this-happening/
Of course, its not perfect. There's more to the history, but the point is clear - how far back can the blame go?
Dave SchechterCNN Senior National Editor
Any attempt to answer the question “why is this happening?” — this effort included — will be found wanting by supporters of both Israel and the Palestinians, who will decry omissions of history, over-simplification, lack of sufficient context and invalidation of truths they hold to be self-evident.
Nonetheless, for those not steeped in the minutiae of the conflict, a guide for the perplexed.
There are no good dates left on the calendar.
That’s been my line for years about the Israel-Palestinian conflict.
By now every square on the calendar can be checked off as the date when one side committed what the other considers to be an atrocity.
(For purposes of this piece, we’ll use a definition of atrocity from the dictionary on my desk: “An act of vicious cruelty, esp. the killing of unarmed people.”) There is no black-and-white, only shades of gray.
That is my other line about the Israel-Palestinian conflict.
The hard-core on both sides, of course, see matters in absolute terms.
When viewed as a zero-sum game, in which what one gains is offset by what another loses, compromise is difficult, if not impossible. The first thing to keep in mind is that there are two narratives at play, narratives that began thousands of years ago.
It’s as if an Israeli vehicle collided with a Palestinian vehicle but the drivers steadfastly maintain radically different versions of what happened, of who did what to whom.
And there often is little respect for the viewpoint of the other.
The storyteller Noa Baum, who performs a piece she calls “A Land Twice Promised,” in which she intertwines the stories of Israeli and Palestinian women, puts it this way on her website: “I believe that at the heart of this conflict are two parallel narratives of two national movements struggling to gain sovereignty over the same piece of land. This conflict is characterized by endless layers of memories of pain, injustice and victimization. At the same time there is a lack of listening and no willingness to legitimize the narrative of the other side. I believe that acknowledgement of the other’s story is the first step toward creating dialogue and relationship building, which is the foundation for healing and peace - the only alternative to the spiraling vortex of violence.” Right now we are in that “spiraling vortex of violence.”
Why is this happening?
History can be a guide, but history is in the eye of the beholder. How far back do you want to go?
In the Bible, Abraham’s wife Sarah was barren and he fathered a son, Ishmael, by Hagar, who was Sarah’s handmaiden (and depending on the interpretation, a gift from an Egyptian Pharaoh).
Fourteen years later, the story goes, Sarah became pregnant and bore Abraham another son, Isaac.
The book of Genesis tells believers that God commanded Abraham to expel Hagar and Ishmael, but promised to make a great nation of their people.
Isaac’s people became the Jews; Ishmael’s the Arabs and Muslims.
Too far back?
At the end of the 1800s, European Jews fleeing persecution began arriving in the land of Zion (ergo, Zionists) seeking to establish a Jewish homeland in “Eretz Israel,” the land of Israel, the soil of their ancestors.
A people without a land for a land without people.
Except, of course, that wasn’t the case.
While there had remained a relatively small Jewish presence in the land called Palestine, the newcomers returned “home” and found there a much larger number of Ishmael’s descendants with a claim to the same soil. Still too far back?
In 1947, as the British sought to extricate themselves from the land they took in war from the Ottoman Turks, the fledgling United Nations offered the original two-state solution.
At the time the population in the affected area was roughly two-thirds Arab, one-third Jewish.
The Jews were unhappy with their allotment (a majority of the land but much of it in the Negev Desert) but accepted the proposal.
Arab leaders unhappy with their portion rejected both the partition plan and the idea of an eventual Jewish nation in Palestine.
In 1948, Israel declared its independence, followed almost immediately by war with the Arab nations, in which Israel captured far more land than had been allotted in the U.N. plan.
What the Jews celebrate, the Palestinians call the “nakba,” or catastrophe.
In the months leading up to the war, several hundred thousand Arabs fled their homes, beginning the refugee issue that persists today.
Debate continues over the degree to which they were forced out by the Jews or encouraged by their own leaders to leave, expecting to return when the Jews were defeated.
In the months and years following the war, several hundred thousand Jews left their homes in Arab nations, the majority settling in Israel. Not recent enough?
In the 1967 “Six-Day War,” Israel conquered the Sinai Peninsula, the Gaza strip, the West Bank (as in the West Bank of the Jordan River), the eastern half of Jerusalem and the Golan Heights. (For purposes of this piece, we’ll call the Gaza Strip “Gaza,” as distinct from Gaza City.) Egypt had controlled the Gaza since 1948. Now it became Israel’s headache.
In a relatively small strip of land along the Mediterranean Sea (25 miles long and 4-7 miles wide, slightly more than twice the size of Washington, D.C.) was a rapidly growing Arab population (then approximately 280,000, now an estimated 1.5 million people), living in what politely could be referred to as squalor.
Gaza, as densely crowded a piece of real estate as you will find on this planet, has been a boiling cauldron. That squalor is the enduring memory of my first visit to Gaza more than 20 years ago.
Sewage running down gutters in alleys and streets.
People crammed into makeshift housing that became permanent over time.
A hospital operating without air conditioning in stifling heat and without window screens to keep out flies.
One prominent family living in palatial surroundings less than a stone’s throw from abject poverty.
My favorite metaphor for Gaza was the rusting freighter then stuck and decaying some 100 yards off the coast of the Al-Shati refugee camp. Over the years, the leaders of Arab and Muslim nations have used protests about the plight of the Palestinians as a convenient way to let their populace blow off steam over unrelated domestic issues.
The Palestinians have reason to feel used, if not betrayed, by some of their brethren.
Expressions of this sentiment have been heard in recent days from a frustrated population in Gaza and echoed by Hezbollah’s leadership in Lebanon and the authors of opinion pieces in the Arab press.
Iran, which is Islamic but not Arab, supports both Hamas and Hezbollah, the Lebanon-based Islamic political and military organization that fought a 2006 war with Israel.
Israel’s vaunted military may not be trying to compensate for its perceived “loss” in Lebanon but in Gaza surely has implemented solutions to the harsh lessons learned fighting Hezbollah.
It’s that influence of Iran through Hamas and Hezbollah that makes the rulers of numerous Arab nations nervous about Islamic movements gaining an even greater foothold than they already have in their own countries.
The global affairs think tank Stratfor summarized this point: “With somewhat limited options to contain Iranian expansion in the region, the Arab states ironically are looking to Israel to ensure that Hamas remains boxed in. So, while on the surface it may seem that the entire Arab world is convulsing with anger at Israel’s offensive against Hamas, a closer look reveals that the view from the Arab palace is quite different from the view on the Arab street.” And now we reach the year 2009.
Three years after forcing religious-based settlers to leave Gaza, Israel maintains tight control of the crossing points on land, the seas offshore and the skies above.
Israel is at war against Hamas, a Sunni Muslim organization created more than 20 years ago; its name an acronym for the Arabic words “Harakat Al-Muqawama Al-Islamia” meaning Islamic Resistance Movement.
Hamas is a political party and provides social services in Gaza.
It also has a military component.
Israel and the United States are among those who consider Hamas to be a terrorist organization.
Hamas has taken credit (a more boastful stance than a mere claim of responsibility) for suicide bombings that have killed hundreds of Israelis.
Hamas also has fired several thousand rockets and mortars into Southern Israel during the past several years.
The rockets are crude by modern military standards, though Israel says that Iran has given Hamas rockets with longer range and greater accuracy. An Israeli blockade on relief supplies failed to pressure Hamas into halting rocket attacks.
But it did give Palestinians the chance to link Israel’s tactics to the Holocaust by calling the blockade “the siege of the Gaza ghetto,” a barely veiled reference to the Nazi siege of the Jewish ghetto in Warsaw.
Israel and Hamas each say the other’s actions precipitated the collapse a couple of weeks ago of a temporary truce brokered by Egypt.
After declaring the “tadiyeh” no longer in effect, Hamas stepped up rocket attacks that had tapered off during those six months.
Israel decided that it no longer could tolerate 1.5 million of its citizens living in fear.
Israel struck first from the air and then on land.
Palestinians accuse Israel of “genocide” and “ethnic cleansing.”
Israelis are offended by the linguistic linkage to the Holocaust and point to language such as this from Hamas’ 1988 convenant: “Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it.” Israel contends that while its military tries to limit civilian casualties, Hamas fires rockets from residential neighborhoods and the grounds of schools and other institutions, using the local population as “human flak jackets,” Chemi Shalev wrote in the newspaper Israel Hayom.
Did Hamas underestimate Israel’s willingness to hit and hit hard or count on that response?
From an Israeli perspective, Hamas is willing to suffer mass casualties among the Palestinians if it mobilizes world opinion against Israel.
Speaking in Damascus, Hamas official Moussa abu Marzouk told a reporter from New American Media that “When Israel uses these means, it doesn’t decrease support for Hamas. It accomplishes the opposite. The popularity of Hamas has increased sharply among the Palestinian people and people throughout the Muslim world.”
From a Palestinian perspective, the scope of Israel’s air and ground assault and the mounting toll of dead and wounded in Gaza is a disproportionate response to the firing of rockets and mortars that have killed and injured a relatively small number of Israelis.
In the Israeli newspaper Yediot Aharanoth, Gilad Sharon offered no sympathy: “There are those who say that we are striking at civilians and a population in Gaza that is not to blame,” he wrote, adding , “This is self-righteousness; we did not elect Hamas, the public in Gaza did, in droves.If they are suffering, they should elect someone better next time”.
Writing in the Arab News, Osama al Sharif lamented: “Israel’s killing machine could not be reined in, and as diplomacy stumbled, or was intentionally aborted, anger and calls for action swept through world capitals. The show of solidarity with the Palestinians, and in particular with the people of Gaza, was universal in spite of a brittle resolve of governments, especially members of the Security Council.” The past, the present and now, the future.
Barack Obama will be sworn in as the U.S. president on January 20.
Playing the “one President at a time” card, President-elect Obama has held his tongue thus far, but promises to have much to say once in office.
Despite reiterating his support for Israel (a contentious issue during the campaign) there is wariness in Israel about how the new President Obama will handle the intractable problem that has bedeviled his predecessors.
If only in the interest of getting off on a positive foot, might Israel consider concluding its current Gaza campaign before the Oval Office changes hands? President George Bush has been an outspoken friend of Israel, supportive of the Palestinian National Authority and critical throughout of Hamas.
Many Israelis and Palestinians alike were disappointed by the level of U.S. activity (or inactivity, if you choose) in American efforts to resolve the conflict during most of his eight-year administration.
Having watched the failure of President Bill Clinton’s heated Camp David diplomacy, the White House initially allowed that pot to simmer on a back burner.
Toward the end of his administration, President Bush spoke perhaps too optimistically about Israel and the Palestinians concluding an agreement before he left office.
“I was the first American President to call for a Palestinian state, and building support for the two-state solution has been one of the highest priorities of my Presidency. To earn the trust of Israeli leaders, we made it clear that no Palestinian state would be born of terror,” he said in a speech delivered in December.
Looking the future, President Bush predicted, “The day will come when people from Cairo and Riyadh to Baghdad and Beirut to Damascus and Tehran live in free and independent societies, bound together by ties of diplomacy, tourism, and trade.”
“The day will come when al Qaeda, Hezbollah, and Hamas are marginalized and then wither away, as Muslims across the region realize the emptiness of the terrorists’ vision and the injustice of their cause,” he said. President Obama will be an interested spectator when Israel goes to the polls on February 10 to elect a new Knesset, its parliament.
Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, Defense Minister Ehud Barak and former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu head the slates of the three parties expected to gain the most seats, though whichever party garners the most seats likely will have to form a coalition government that includes smaller parties.
With the Israeli military at war neither Livni nor Barak (the Israeli Prime Minister at those failed Camp David negotiations) wants to appear soft when most segments of the Israeli public back the campaign against Hamas and an election battle looms with the decidedly hawkish Netanyahu.
Meanwhile, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas could call for elections this spring that would pit his more secular Fatah movement against the Islamist Hamas.
It was Hamas’ stunning (to the United States, if not also Israel) victory in the 2006 elections that led to the current situation in which Abbas and Fatah control the West Bank while Hamas rules in Gaza.
The U.S. and Israel would like Abbas and Fatah to extend their governance to include Gaza, but there is no money to be made betting on that outcome. Just as the Jews achieved their dream of a national homeland, the Palestinians yearn for a nationality to call their own.
But the past (how far back do you want to do?) years have embittered Israelis toward Palestinians and Palestinians toward Israelis.
Generations have been born and grown up and grown old knowing no other reality.
Until that cycle ends, there won’t be many “good” dates on the calendar.
Thursday, January 8, 2009
The computer is so unbelievably slow today it's getting on my nerves.
---
I feel kind of sad that I just can't talk and connect with G. Sure. He says I can call him whenever if i want to talk, but then what? There's this nagging feeling that he can't get over his Catholic prejudice of me. Or maybe I'm just thinking to much.
Lack of direct communication can cause mis-communication.
---
I feel kind of sad that I just can't talk and connect with G. Sure. He says I can call him whenever if i want to talk, but then what? There's this nagging feeling that he can't get over his Catholic prejudice of me. Or maybe I'm just thinking to much.
Lack of direct communication can cause mis-communication.
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
Gaza Update
Taken from the AC360 website. http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2009/01/05/on-the-ground-near-the-gaza-border/
Program Note: Watch Anderson report LIVE from Israel tonight on AC360° at 10 pm ET.
Anderson Cooper
You see the explosions before you hear them. A giant plume of gray smoke rising in the air, it’s not until seconds later that the sound of the impact reaches you, here in Israel about 2 miles from the border.
Of course, it’s not like that for those on the ground in Gaza. Those close to the fighting no doubt hear the missiles before they see them, before they even hit. We are stuck on a hill overlooking the border, within sight of the battleground, but a world away.
If we had a choice we’d be on the ground in Gaza, but the Israeli government won’t let reporters get any closer.
We are entering the third night of ground combat operations, and its impossible to get a sense of how the battle is going. All sides project confidence. All sides give you numbers:
The Israelis say at least 40 Hamas rockets were fired into Israel Monday and at least 40 airstrikes were launched against Hamas targets.
No Israeli civilians have been killed today, though 4 Israelis have been killed by rockets since the crisis began.
Palestinian medical authorities say well over 500 Palestinians have died so far; and more than 2750 wounded. One Israeli soldier was killed yesterday, the first fatality since ground operations began.
The numbers tell a part of the story, but they don’t truly give you a sense of the pain, the fear, the anger.
Positions are hardening. A senior Hamas official today made greater threats, saying Israelis “legitimize the killing of their people all over the world when they killed our people.”
Diplomatic efforts are gaining momentum, and outrage over the civilian casualties in Gaza appears to be growing. But most Israelis still strongly support their government’s efforts to stop the Hamas rockets, and the fighting shows no sign of letting up anytime soon.
--
have i mentioned how much I love anderson?
Program Note: Watch Anderson report LIVE from Israel tonight on AC360° at 10 pm ET.
Anderson Cooper
You see the explosions before you hear them. A giant plume of gray smoke rising in the air, it’s not until seconds later that the sound of the impact reaches you, here in Israel about 2 miles from the border.
Of course, it’s not like that for those on the ground in Gaza. Those close to the fighting no doubt hear the missiles before they see them, before they even hit. We are stuck on a hill overlooking the border, within sight of the battleground, but a world away.
If we had a choice we’d be on the ground in Gaza, but the Israeli government won’t let reporters get any closer.
We are entering the third night of ground combat operations, and its impossible to get a sense of how the battle is going. All sides project confidence. All sides give you numbers:
The Israelis say at least 40 Hamas rockets were fired into Israel Monday and at least 40 airstrikes were launched against Hamas targets.
No Israeli civilians have been killed today, though 4 Israelis have been killed by rockets since the crisis began.
Palestinian medical authorities say well over 500 Palestinians have died so far; and more than 2750 wounded. One Israeli soldier was killed yesterday, the first fatality since ground operations began.
The numbers tell a part of the story, but they don’t truly give you a sense of the pain, the fear, the anger.
Positions are hardening. A senior Hamas official today made greater threats, saying Israelis “legitimize the killing of their people all over the world when they killed our people.”
Diplomatic efforts are gaining momentum, and outrage over the civilian casualties in Gaza appears to be growing. But most Israelis still strongly support their government’s efforts to stop the Hamas rockets, and the fighting shows no sign of letting up anytime soon.
--
have i mentioned how much I love anderson?
Monday, January 5, 2009
I found this website called wikisky.org which is SO COOL!
Here's a taster, the Carsina Nebulae. It's absolutely BEAUTIFUL!
I want a TARDIS to go there RIGHT NOW! (Since the world of STAR WARS doesn't exist. hmph).
And I love The NOW Show. Pls go download the podcast from the BBC! It's so funny! (:
2009 HERE I COME!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
