The non-scientist's relation to modern science is basically craven: we look to its discoveries and technology to save us from disease, to give us a faster ride and a softer life, and at the same time we shrink from what it has to tell us of our perilous and insignificant place in the cosmos. Not that threats to our safety and significance were absent from the pre-scientific world, or that arguments against a God-bestowed human grandeur were lacking before Darwin. But our century's revelations of unthinkable largeness and unimaginable smallness, of abysmal stretches of geological time when we were nothing, of supernumerary galaxies and indeterminate subatomic behavior, of a kind of mad mathematical violence at the heart of matter have scorched us deeper than we know.-- an oft-said sentiment, but, as is his wont, Updike just expresses it so bloody well.
-- John Updike (1985)
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Updike on Science
Quote from here (via Andrew Sullivan):
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Obama's Bushian Policies
What Hilzoy said about Obama's endorsement of Bush's use of the state secrets program. ("What Hilzoy said" is the new "what Digby said", I think...)
Shame, shame, shame on the Obama administration.
Glenn Greenwald's two posts on this issue are also highly recommended.
Shame, shame, shame on the Obama administration.
Glenn Greenwald's two posts on this issue are also highly recommended.
Thursday, February 05, 2009
Why Obama's Losing (Control of) the Debate
I don't dissent from the emerging (left) blogosphere consensus on why Obama is getting kicked around on the stimulus bill, and losing a lot of momentum in general in his presidency in the process (see e.g. Josh Marshall, Steve Benen, Digby and company; etc). In fact, it seems to me that you could sum it up in a sentence:
Post-partisanship is an extremely successful political strategy, but an extremely poor governing strategy.
Obama's penchant for post-partisanship -- which shows every sign of being quite sincerely held -- was always the thing I liked least about him; and it damaged him in one of the few areas I thought he needed real improvement, namely his inconsistency in articulating a powerful liberal philosophy (which he did well when he wanted). But I was the exception here. A lot of people have a vague sense that the problem in politics is all the political bickering, and that politicians need to sit down, get past ideology, and be practical -- indeed, this is a belief that unites (ironically) those who pay very little attention to politics and the David Broders of the world who compose the American political & media elite.* It sounds adult and serious; when Obama said it, it sounds uplifting and hopeful. It made you want to vote for him. So it's good politics: it gets votes.
But it's terrible for governing. Because to govern, you need to actually pass bills that deal with issues people disagree vehemently about. Because the Republican party is terrible at running the government (as we all learned these past eight years of misgovernance), but are far, far better than the Democrats at being the opposition party: controlling the debate, blocking things that need doing. Because the Republicans know that if nothing gets done -- and dear God there are a lot of things that need doing, desperately and urgently -- then whatever the reasons for the failure, however much there may be good arguments that it was an obstructionist minority party that messed it up, voters will (in their recurring and basically sound strategy of low-information voting) throw out the ruling party when things go badly. So as long as they care only about power and not about the country -- and frankly I think that's pretty clear (if you disagree, simply read this as: "as long as they, like Rush Limbaugh, are rooting for Obama to fail") -- then they can win simply by blocking every attempt at solving the mess we're in. Because, ultimately, the Republicans aren't going to try to work with the Democrats in good faith; they're going to try to sabotage them. And they're very, very, very good at sabotage.
Having won the election on a campaign that included both a host policy proposals and a vague rhetoric of post-partisanship, what Obama needed to do -- and still needs to do, since I don't think it's too late, although if he doesn't change course soon it might be -- was confine the post-partisanship to symbols like giving Rick Warren an inauguration slot and going to dinner with conservative columnists, and get his damn agenda through the Congress. Get us out of Iraq. Stimulate the economy. Start to deal with global warming. Repair some of the damage Bush did to our constitution. Make things better.
Because if hope and rhetoric about a new politics are what get you elected, things getting better are what get you reelected.
Not to mention the fact that we're in deep shit and the country really needs a lot of help.
Focusing on post-partisanship lets them control the debate, and the Republicans just want Obama to fail (as their liege-lord, Limbaugh, said plainly; and woe betides any Republican who crosses Rush!). So throw them a rhetorical bone and get to work repairing the country already.
When Republicans controlled everything, they dominated the political debate, marched in lock-step, and passed through Bush's program... which resulted in a generational disaster for the country in practically every area of life, since conservative policies are almost uniformly disastrous when put into application. Now that Democrats control everything, they need to push through their agenda to show that it works (which, I think, it will... in a sufficiently strong form, one that isn't emasculated with pre-negotiation giveaways to conservative grumbling). Otherwise nothing will happen... and conservatives will get back into power, and resume their destruction of our country.
Act like the damn majority party already. Write your ideas as if the Republicans didn't exist, pass the bills and let Obama sign them. If they work, no one will remember the process. But if they're not tried, no one will care what the process was.
All they want is for Obama to fail, even if the country goes with it. So stop taking them seriously, stop negotiating with them, and save the country. That's what matters.
Update: Theda Skocpol puts the matter succinctly (via): "Obama is, sadly, much to blame for giving the Republicans so much leverage. He defined the challenge as biparitsanship not saving the U.S. economy."
Ryan Avent, guest-blogging chez Yglesias, says something close to what I'm saying here too:
So far, Obama's done some good things -- e.g. good appointments at Justice and the beginning of the work undoing Bush's lawless torture regime -- but he's not doing well at his main task. Now, he's a good counterpuncher, or was in the campaign anyway, so I still hope he'll pull this out. But I think it's reasonable to worry at this point. Particularly since we no longer have much leeway for error.
Update 2: This is a good start. More like this, please. Much, much, much more.
Update 3: Krugman writes his version of what I called above the left blogosphere consensus, with some added emphasis on the level of economic doom we're facing.
___________________
* Ironic, but not really, because neither really focuses much on policy: the former because they lack the time or energy or aptitude or interest or whatever to focus on politics at all; and the latter because they're much more interested in politics as gossip about people they know and something akin to spectator sports, their for strategy bull sessions and entertainment. People who care about actual policy are rarely prophets of bipartisan utopia because they actually care what happens, and the parties differ on most issues. (And on most of the issues they are fairly similar on -- intellectual property, the drug war, blind support for Israel, etc. -- the are uniformly bad and not uniformly good).
Post-partisanship is an extremely successful political strategy, but an extremely poor governing strategy.
Obama's penchant for post-partisanship -- which shows every sign of being quite sincerely held -- was always the thing I liked least about him; and it damaged him in one of the few areas I thought he needed real improvement, namely his inconsistency in articulating a powerful liberal philosophy (which he did well when he wanted). But I was the exception here. A lot of people have a vague sense that the problem in politics is all the political bickering, and that politicians need to sit down, get past ideology, and be practical -- indeed, this is a belief that unites (ironically) those who pay very little attention to politics and the David Broders of the world who compose the American political & media elite.* It sounds adult and serious; when Obama said it, it sounds uplifting and hopeful. It made you want to vote for him. So it's good politics: it gets votes.
But it's terrible for governing. Because to govern, you need to actually pass bills that deal with issues people disagree vehemently about. Because the Republican party is terrible at running the government (as we all learned these past eight years of misgovernance), but are far, far better than the Democrats at being the opposition party: controlling the debate, blocking things that need doing. Because the Republicans know that if nothing gets done -- and dear God there are a lot of things that need doing, desperately and urgently -- then whatever the reasons for the failure, however much there may be good arguments that it was an obstructionist minority party that messed it up, voters will (in their recurring and basically sound strategy of low-information voting) throw out the ruling party when things go badly. So as long as they care only about power and not about the country -- and frankly I think that's pretty clear (if you disagree, simply read this as: "as long as they, like Rush Limbaugh, are rooting for Obama to fail") -- then they can win simply by blocking every attempt at solving the mess we're in. Because, ultimately, the Republicans aren't going to try to work with the Democrats in good faith; they're going to try to sabotage them. And they're very, very, very good at sabotage.
Having won the election on a campaign that included both a host policy proposals and a vague rhetoric of post-partisanship, what Obama needed to do -- and still needs to do, since I don't think it's too late, although if he doesn't change course soon it might be -- was confine the post-partisanship to symbols like giving Rick Warren an inauguration slot and going to dinner with conservative columnists, and get his damn agenda through the Congress. Get us out of Iraq. Stimulate the economy. Start to deal with global warming. Repair some of the damage Bush did to our constitution. Make things better.
Because if hope and rhetoric about a new politics are what get you elected, things getting better are what get you reelected.
Not to mention the fact that we're in deep shit and the country really needs a lot of help.
Focusing on post-partisanship lets them control the debate, and the Republicans just want Obama to fail (as their liege-lord, Limbaugh, said plainly; and woe betides any Republican who crosses Rush!). So throw them a rhetorical bone and get to work repairing the country already.
When Republicans controlled everything, they dominated the political debate, marched in lock-step, and passed through Bush's program... which resulted in a generational disaster for the country in practically every area of life, since conservative policies are almost uniformly disastrous when put into application. Now that Democrats control everything, they need to push through their agenda to show that it works (which, I think, it will... in a sufficiently strong form, one that isn't emasculated with pre-negotiation giveaways to conservative grumbling). Otherwise nothing will happen... and conservatives will get back into power, and resume their destruction of our country.
Act like the damn majority party already. Write your ideas as if the Republicans didn't exist, pass the bills and let Obama sign them. If they work, no one will remember the process. But if they're not tried, no one will care what the process was.
All they want is for Obama to fail, even if the country goes with it. So stop taking them seriously, stop negotiating with them, and save the country. That's what matters.
Update: Theda Skocpol puts the matter succinctly (via): "Obama is, sadly, much to blame for giving the Republicans so much leverage. He defined the challenge as biparitsanship not saving the U.S. economy."
Ryan Avent, guest-blogging chez Yglesias, says something close to what I'm saying here too:
A changed tone in Washington, if costless, would be a wonderful thing. But voters put Obama and Democratic majorities into office in order to get results. If Obama chooses to embrace Republicans even as they actively work against the interests of the vast majority of Americans, then we have to question his judgment. It takes two to change the tone. Republicans aren’t interested, and they’re using his overtures to undermine the American economy and the Obama presidency.
So far, Obama's done some good things -- e.g. good appointments at Justice and the beginning of the work undoing Bush's lawless torture regime -- but he's not doing well at his main task. Now, he's a good counterpuncher, or was in the campaign anyway, so I still hope he'll pull this out. But I think it's reasonable to worry at this point. Particularly since we no longer have much leeway for error.
Update 2: This is a good start. More like this, please. Much, much, much more.
Update 3: Krugman writes his version of what I called above the left blogosphere consensus, with some added emphasis on the level of economic doom we're facing.
___________________
* Ironic, but not really, because neither really focuses much on policy: the former because they lack the time or energy or aptitude or interest or whatever to focus on politics at all; and the latter because they're much more interested in politics as gossip about people they know and something akin to spectator sports, their for strategy bull sessions and entertainment. People who care about actual policy are rarely prophets of bipartisan utopia because they actually care what happens, and the parties differ on most issues. (And on most of the issues they are fairly similar on -- intellectual property, the drug war, blind support for Israel, etc. -- the are uniformly bad and not uniformly good).
Wednesday, February 04, 2009
Poem of the Day: American Poetry
American Poetry
Whatever it is, it must have
A stomach that can digest
Rubber, coal, uranium, moons, poems.
Like the shark, it contains a shoe.
It must swim for miles through the desert
Uttering cries that are almost human.
-- Louis Simpson, 1963
[Source]
Whatever it is, it must have
A stomach that can digest
Rubber, coal, uranium, moons, poems.
Like the shark, it contains a shoe.
It must swim for miles through the desert
Uttering cries that are almost human.
-- Louis Simpson, 1963
[Source]
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
John Updike (1932 - 2009)
The man who was, in all likelihood, the greatest writer of English prose sentences of our time (whatever the faults in some of his larger structures of paragraph, chapter or book, he was the master of the sentence) has died at the age of 76.
Rest in peace.
Rest in peace.
...I suddenly got a glimpse of how disassembled and undirected and simply bereft I would feel if I were to learn suddenly through the Associated Press of Updike's death. All I wanted, all I counted on, was Updike's immortality: his open-ended stream of books, reviews, even poems, and especially responses to pert queries from Mademoiselle and The New York Times Book Review.... I wanted more of these monocellular living appearances. More awards-acceptance speeches! He was, I felt, the model of the twentieth-century American man of letters: for him to die would be for my generation's personal connection with literature to die, and for us all to be confronted at last with the terrifying unmediated enormity of the cast-concrete university library, whose antitheft gates go click-click-click-click as we leave, dry laughter at how few books we can carry home with us.
-- Nicholson Baker, U and I
Do I really want it, this self, these scattered fingerprints on the air, to persist forever, to outlast the atomic universe? Those who scoff at the Christian hope of an afterlife have on their side not only a mass of biological evidence knitting the self-conscious mind tight to the perishing body but a certain moral superiority as well: isn't it terribly, well, selfish, and grotesquely egocentric, to hope for more than our animal walk in the sun, from eager blind infancy through the productive and procreative years into a senescence that, by the laws of biological instinct as well as by the premeditated precepts of stoic virtue, will submit to eternal sleep gracefully? Where, indeed, in the vast spaces disclosed by modern astronomy, would our disembodied spirit go, and, once there, what would it do?
-- John Updike, "On Being a Self Forever", Self-Consciousness
Thursday, January 22, 2009
It Pays To Consider All Sides of These Questions
"What if the mightiest word is love?"Indeed!
-- Elizabeth Alexander, 20 January 2009
Inaugural Poem, "Praise Song for the Day"
But!!
What if the mightiest word is indigestion?
What if the mightiest word is doorknob?
What if the mightiest word is synteresis?
What if the mightiest word is metempsychosis?
What if the mightiest word is polychromatic?
What if the mightiest word is oxidize?
What if the mightiest word is hebetude?
What if the mightiest word is fluoridation?
What if the mightiest word is aardvark?
What if the mightiest word is dysentery?
What if the mightiest word is glue?
What if the mightiest word is zygomatic?
What if the mightiest word is antepenultimate?
What if the mightiest word is anapestic?
And last but not least...
What if the mightiest word is trite?
Inquiring minds, as the saying goes, want to know.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Post-Game Blather on the Inauguration...
A few random thoughts right after:
* Reverend Lowery totally stole the show.
* Given that that speech was watched by more people than any he's ever made, that was a distinctly mediocre performance by Obama. Not anywhere near his 2004 convention speech, or his Iowa speech, or his race speech, or any of his other many speeches.
* I did, however, like his method of rebuking Bush, talking about returning to our values against expediency. And I thought that buried under a mass of cliche and a few unfortunate shout-outs to a pernicious right-wing ideology, there was a decent defense of liberalism.
* [Right-wing wingnut]Obama isn't really president because he flubbed the oath!![/wingnut]
* Shorter Dianne Feinstein: OMG he's black!!
* Rick Warren made it very specifically Christian, a nice fuck you to all the non-Christians in the country. But then, you invite a man like that to do the invocation, what do you expect?
* Elizabeth Anderson seemed to serve as the processional music to let people leave. About right given the place of poetry in our culture.
* [Right-wing wingnut]Hey, Obama hasn't fixed the economy yet!! He's a failure!!![/wingnut]
* Overall, quite anti-climactic. I felt a lot more moved by Pete Seeger & Bruce.
* I note with pleasure that Google has gotten around to adding "Obama" to the blogger spell-checker... but that the one that the Mac uses to check as you type hasn't.
Update, minutes later:
* I wrote all that without looking at other people's reactions. But Lowery is getting praise all over the place. Well deserved!
* One thing I've yet to see anyone note: When Obama said "Forty-four Americans have now taken the presidential oath", he was, of course, wrong. Only 43 have. He's the 44th President because of the genuinely idiotic practice of counting Grover Cleveland twice. (You can't even say, "43 took it, one took it twice", because every President who was re-elected took it twice. (FDR took it four times.) It's just wrong, and dumb.)
Next-day Update:
I see I wasn't the only person to catch the error in Obama's claim that "Forty-four Americans have now taken the presidential oath", although I've seen less note of it than I might have thought. Interestingly, that blog-post contains an (admittedly third-hand) claim that "the Obama folks... knew of the discrepancy and that it was less confusing to get it wrong and say 44". Which may be, in itself, the best argument I've heard yet against the truly silly double-counting of Grover Cleveland.
* Reverend Lowery totally stole the show.
* Given that that speech was watched by more people than any he's ever made, that was a distinctly mediocre performance by Obama. Not anywhere near his 2004 convention speech, or his Iowa speech, or his race speech, or any of his other many speeches.
* I did, however, like his method of rebuking Bush, talking about returning to our values against expediency. And I thought that buried under a mass of cliche and a few unfortunate shout-outs to a pernicious right-wing ideology, there was a decent defense of liberalism.
* [Right-wing wingnut]Obama isn't really president because he flubbed the oath!![/wingnut]
* Shorter Dianne Feinstein: OMG he's black!!
* Rick Warren made it very specifically Christian, a nice fuck you to all the non-Christians in the country. But then, you invite a man like that to do the invocation, what do you expect?
* Elizabeth Anderson seemed to serve as the processional music to let people leave. About right given the place of poetry in our culture.
* [Right-wing wingnut]Hey, Obama hasn't fixed the economy yet!! He's a failure!!![/wingnut]
* Overall, quite anti-climactic. I felt a lot more moved by Pete Seeger & Bruce.
* I note with pleasure that Google has gotten around to adding "Obama" to the blogger spell-checker... but that the one that the Mac uses to check as you type hasn't.
Update, minutes later:
* I wrote all that without looking at other people's reactions. But Lowery is getting praise all over the place. Well deserved!
* One thing I've yet to see anyone note: When Obama said "Forty-four Americans have now taken the presidential oath", he was, of course, wrong. Only 43 have. He's the 44th President because of the genuinely idiotic practice of counting Grover Cleveland twice. (You can't even say, "43 took it, one took it twice", because every President who was re-elected took it twice. (FDR took it four times.) It's just wrong, and dumb.)
Next-day Update:
I see I wasn't the only person to catch the error in Obama's claim that "Forty-four Americans have now taken the presidential oath", although I've seen less note of it than I might have thought. Interestingly, that blog-post contains an (admittedly third-hand) claim that "the Obama folks... knew of the discrepancy and that it was less confusing to get it wrong and say 44". Which may be, in itself, the best argument I've heard yet against the truly silly double-counting of Grover Cleveland.
Monday, January 19, 2009
Perhaps the Greatest Song Ever Written About Our Home
Performed by two of the greatest musicians to come from it -- and a vast chorus of its citizens, come to celebrate the renewal of that home in an hour of great peril:
(via, and also, and also... (& here's context for one bit))
It feels like a national holiday Tuesday, a renewal, a solstice after eight years of darkness. Indeed, I suspect that it is not just parochialism speaking if I say that it is probably not just a national holiday: given the role America plays on the world stage, given the inspiration we can be at our best and the horror we can commit at our worst, I bet that there are people around the world who feels like it is almost a world holiday. (Bono captured this aspect -- Digby has the video -- when he declared that Martin Luther King's dream was also an Irish dream, a European dream, an African dream, an Israeli dream and a Palestinian dream.) At any rate, for us here, it is a festival.
A day of independence. The fourth of July in midwinter.
I have said many times that Obama will disappoint me (and us, for any us) bitterly, and often -- in some instances he already has. But he also embodies hope -- hope of the America that has never been, and yet will be: the America that stands for the self-evident truths that all people are created equal, that governments are meant to be of the people, by the people, for the people. The America not only of George Washington and Abraham Lincoln, but of Franklin Roosevelt and Martin Luther King, too.
Nobody living can ever stop me
As I go walking that freedom highway
Nobody living can ever make me turn back
This land was made for you and me
He is hope after eight years of leadership that could hardly have done worse for our country if they had set out deliberately to destroy it; and he is hope for a part of our people who have ever been cut out of the American dream, the people for whom -- as the new saying goes -- Rosa sat and Martin walked.
Obama is a politician: but he is also a symbol. Politicians are always corrupted, flawed, imperfect, disappointing. But symbols are always perfect.
He is a symbol of the best of our country -- our home. Of the land that really is made for you and me. A symbol of what we want our country to be, and what we want it to mean.
Obama has inherited Pandora's mantle: all the troubles in a bitterly troubled world, with only the small thread of hope to keep him going. I hope it's enough for him: more could not be riding on a single man.
The forces that tore our country down for eight years, domestic and foreign, political and economic and natural and human, will be at him from 12:01 tomorrow, and will do their best to strangle the hope he represents in its crib. We will have to fight the politician Obama in order to keep faith with the symbol. It is not a prospect that is aided by romanticism.
But for tomorrow, I'm going to let myself smile.
And hope.
Yes we can.
(via, and also, and also... (& here's context for one bit))
It feels like a national holiday Tuesday, a renewal, a solstice after eight years of darkness. Indeed, I suspect that it is not just parochialism speaking if I say that it is probably not just a national holiday: given the role America plays on the world stage, given the inspiration we can be at our best and the horror we can commit at our worst, I bet that there are people around the world who feels like it is almost a world holiday. (Bono captured this aspect -- Digby has the video -- when he declared that Martin Luther King's dream was also an Irish dream, a European dream, an African dream, an Israeli dream and a Palestinian dream.) At any rate, for us here, it is a festival.
A day of independence. The fourth of July in midwinter.
I have said many times that Obama will disappoint me (and us, for any us) bitterly, and often -- in some instances he already has. But he also embodies hope -- hope of the America that has never been, and yet will be: the America that stands for the self-evident truths that all people are created equal, that governments are meant to be of the people, by the people, for the people. The America not only of George Washington and Abraham Lincoln, but of Franklin Roosevelt and Martin Luther King, too.
Nobody living can ever stop me
As I go walking that freedom highway
Nobody living can ever make me turn back
This land was made for you and me
He is hope after eight years of leadership that could hardly have done worse for our country if they had set out deliberately to destroy it; and he is hope for a part of our people who have ever been cut out of the American dream, the people for whom -- as the new saying goes -- Rosa sat and Martin walked.
Obama is a politician: but he is also a symbol. Politicians are always corrupted, flawed, imperfect, disappointing. But symbols are always perfect.
He is a symbol of the best of our country -- our home. Of the land that really is made for you and me. A symbol of what we want our country to be, and what we want it to mean.
Obama has inherited Pandora's mantle: all the troubles in a bitterly troubled world, with only the small thread of hope to keep him going. I hope it's enough for him: more could not be riding on a single man.
The forces that tore our country down for eight years, domestic and foreign, political and economic and natural and human, will be at him from 12:01 tomorrow, and will do their best to strangle the hope he represents in its crib. We will have to fight the politician Obama in order to keep faith with the symbol. It is not a prospect that is aided by romanticism.
But for tomorrow, I'm going to let myself smile.
And hope.
Yes we can.
Friday, January 16, 2009
Gaza
I've been following with horror the news from Gaza (at least as much as my current personal preoccupations will allow, which isn't nearly as much as I would normally focus on an issue such as this.) I haven't blogged about it because I don't really have anything all that original to say about it. And on issues involving the Middle East, one always has to be extremely careful, since so many basic facts (e.g. in the current situation, who broke the cease-fire?) are disputed by the partisans on both sides.
But two American Jews -- Richard Silverstein and an American-born Israeli who writes pseudonymously under the nom de plume of the Magnes Zionist -- have put together a statement, intended to be from American Jewish progressives speaking as such, in protest of Israel's current actions (and our own government's role in supporting those actions). I just signed it, and thought I would urge my readers to consider doing so too.
I will admit I hesitated before signing it. These things are never quite phrased as one would phrase them oneself -- and in particular I found this one to be rather showy and silly in its invocation of (the biblical) Jacob and various Talmudic figures. But whatever. It's basic thrust -- that what Israel is doing (regardless of whether or not one finds the ultimate cause to be an example of jus ad bellum) is criminal in its disregard for civilian lives (i.e. is a terrible violation of jus in bello) -- is clear, is right, and is important to say.
If you consider yourself an American Jewish progressive (I suppose all three of those words are disputable in various cases), then I urge you to consider signing the statement yourself.
(Also, both the blogs of the statement's creators -- Silverstein's Tikkun Olam and the pseudonymous blog of the Magnes Zionist are good places to read articulations about why this war is, in fact, so terribly wrong, and to get links to further information and points of view. I recommend them to those who would agree with the statement linked above -- and recommend them doubly to those who do not.)
Apart from this, I am unlikely to have time to write about the current situation further. But several of my posts from the time of Israel's last war, which also involved disproportionate force resulting in many civilian casualties, are, I think, relevant, so I'll link to them here:
• The Problem with Disproportionate Response
• The Enemy of My Enemy is Not Necessarily My Friend
• Lo Tirtsach
In particular, any potential commentators who want to reply with some variant of "what's wrong with disproportionate force?" are urged to read the first piece prior to commenting, and any commentator who wish to point out that Hamas does evil things too is urged to read the second.
Update: The list of signatories has now been posted here. (I don't know if this means it's too late to sign, or if additional signatures are still being accepted.)
But two American Jews -- Richard Silverstein and an American-born Israeli who writes pseudonymously under the nom de plume of the Magnes Zionist -- have put together a statement, intended to be from American Jewish progressives speaking as such, in protest of Israel's current actions (and our own government's role in supporting those actions). I just signed it, and thought I would urge my readers to consider doing so too.
I will admit I hesitated before signing it. These things are never quite phrased as one would phrase them oneself -- and in particular I found this one to be rather showy and silly in its invocation of (the biblical) Jacob and various Talmudic figures. But whatever. It's basic thrust -- that what Israel is doing (regardless of whether or not one finds the ultimate cause to be an example of jus ad bellum) is criminal in its disregard for civilian lives (i.e. is a terrible violation of jus in bello) -- is clear, is right, and is important to say.
If you consider yourself an American Jewish progressive (I suppose all three of those words are disputable in various cases), then I urge you to consider signing the statement yourself.
(Also, both the blogs of the statement's creators -- Silverstein's Tikkun Olam and the pseudonymous blog of the Magnes Zionist are good places to read articulations about why this war is, in fact, so terribly wrong, and to get links to further information and points of view. I recommend them to those who would agree with the statement linked above -- and recommend them doubly to those who do not.)
Apart from this, I am unlikely to have time to write about the current situation further. But several of my posts from the time of Israel's last war, which also involved disproportionate force resulting in many civilian casualties, are, I think, relevant, so I'll link to them here:
• The Problem with Disproportionate Response
• The Enemy of My Enemy is Not Necessarily My Friend
• Lo Tirtsach
In particular, any potential commentators who want to reply with some variant of "what's wrong with disproportionate force?" are urged to read the first piece prior to commenting, and any commentator who wish to point out that Hamas does evil things too is urged to read the second.
Update: The list of signatories has now been posted here. (I don't know if this means it's too late to sign, or if additional signatures are still being accepted.)
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Sunday, January 04, 2009
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
Joseph Saperstein Frug
In a follow-up to the announcement of last week, I thought I should mention that my newborn son was (if you'll forgive the expression) christened at a brit milah ceremony yesterday in Ithaca, New York. His name is Joseph Saperstein Frug. He is named after my late mother, Mary Joe Frug (z'l). His Hebrew name, Yoseph Zvi, also honors my wife's paternal grandfather, Rabbi Harold Saperstein (z'l), whose Hebrew name was "Zvi".
Sara introduces Joseph and Snark
Posting will, as previously mentioned (and for the obvious reason), be light for the next few weeks. Happy New Year to all.
Sara introduces Joseph and Snark
Posting will, as previously mentioned (and for the obvious reason), be light for the next few weeks. Happy New Year to all.
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
Baby Saperstein Frug
My wife's and my son was born Sunday evening, December 21, at 7:23 p.m., weighing 7 lbs. 13 oz. We just brought him home from the hospital. He and his mother are both healthy.
His name will be announced as part of a traditional Jewish brit milah ceremony next week.
Updates to this blog will be somewhat sporadic for the foreseeable future. I hope to post more baby pictures, and hope to resume regular blogging in a few weeks.
Friday, December 19, 2008
I Seem To Have Gone Mostly on Hiatus Here...
Sorry to have been absent. There hasn't yet been any particular reason -- I just haven't had anything pressing to say, and other tasks in life have taken priority over the non-pressing things.
"But the word 'yet'...". Yes: soon there will be a particular reason, and when there is, I'll announce it here. (This will make sense once I do, I promise.) So not only has posting been light, but it will continue to be light for a while.
My guess/hope is that I'll pick up the pace in the New Year. So check back in January for more bloggy goodness. In the meantime, you can always browse the archives; I'm sure there's something there you missed. (Really; yes, you too..)
But I will be back before then to clear up the cryptic comment in paragraph two.
"But the word 'yet'...". Yes: soon there will be a particular reason, and when there is, I'll announce it here. (This will make sense once I do, I promise.) So not only has posting been light, but it will continue to be light for a while.
My guess/hope is that I'll pick up the pace in the New Year. So check back in January for more bloggy goodness. In the meantime, you can always browse the archives; I'm sure there's something there you missed. (Really; yes, you too..)
But I will be back before then to clear up the cryptic comment in paragraph two.
Friday, December 12, 2008
Thursday, December 11, 2008
Teachers' Job Description; or, The Nature & Purpose of Education Revealed
And that was the trouble. If you didn't find some way of stopping it, people would go on asking questions. The teachers were useful there.... They taught children enough to shut them up, which was the main thing, after all. But they always had to be driven out of the villages by nightfall in case they stole chickens.
-- Terry Pratchett, The Wee Free Men, Chapter 1
Plus! Bonus quote from the subsequent lesson:
"Zoology, eh? That's a big word, isn't it."
"No, actually, it isn't," said Tiffany. "Patronizing is a big word. Zoology is really quite short."
-- Ibid.
Monday, December 08, 2008
I Surf, Therefore I LInk
Diversions, amusements and the like. Some take off of politics, but almost none are primarily political:
• The next President of the United States: 35 photos from the campaign. There's a whole essay to be written here about the iconography of power: Obama is mostly shown either alone or with a huge crowd in which individuals are barely distinguishable; most of the rest are with his family. There are a few of (essentially anonymous) supporters. The only campaign operative, I think, is shown from the back. There's no sense of the real nature of political power -- its complexities, the many people who influence it and create it and have it -- in these images. But since I don't have the energy, right now, to spell any of this out, I'll just say that there are a lot of very beautiful images there. (via)
• I sometimes think my unbounded admiration for Borges's stories and essays interfere with my paying due heed to the brilliance of his poetry. (Or maybe it simply doesn't translate as well? In this case it seems to, anyway.)
• An extraordinary video of probably the most famous excerpt of Harvey Milk's most famous speech: the visuals and music wonderfully complement his (very moving) word.
• Worth it for the opening panel alone.
• Famous paintings recreated using vegetables. Really well done, actually.
• A kick-ass Haiku. I'm totally serious: a kick-ass haiku.
• The onion continues its reign of reportorial brilliance.
• Characters from The Wire redawn in the style of The Simpsons.
• A fun video of Stand By Me. (via)
• Criticising the criticism of James Wood. (Interesting even if you are, as I am, only moderately familiar with his work.)
• Alone doesn't mean lonely.
These links have been piling up for a while, so in most cases I've forgotten where I saw 'em. My apologies for lack of back-linking.
• The next President of the United States: 35 photos from the campaign. There's a whole essay to be written here about the iconography of power: Obama is mostly shown either alone or with a huge crowd in which individuals are barely distinguishable; most of the rest are with his family. There are a few of (essentially anonymous) supporters. The only campaign operative, I think, is shown from the back. There's no sense of the real nature of political power -- its complexities, the many people who influence it and create it and have it -- in these images. But since I don't have the energy, right now, to spell any of this out, I'll just say that there are a lot of very beautiful images there. (via)
• I sometimes think my unbounded admiration for Borges's stories and essays interfere with my paying due heed to the brilliance of his poetry. (Or maybe it simply doesn't translate as well? In this case it seems to, anyway.)
• An extraordinary video of probably the most famous excerpt of Harvey Milk's most famous speech: the visuals and music wonderfully complement his (very moving) word.
• Worth it for the opening panel alone.
• Famous paintings recreated using vegetables. Really well done, actually.
• A kick-ass Haiku. I'm totally serious: a kick-ass haiku.
• The onion continues its reign of reportorial brilliance.
• Characters from The Wire redawn in the style of The Simpsons.
• A fun video of Stand By Me. (via)
• Criticising the criticism of James Wood. (Interesting even if you are, as I am, only moderately familiar with his work.)
• Alone doesn't mean lonely.
These links have been piling up for a while, so in most cases I've forgotten where I saw 'em. My apologies for lack of back-linking.
Friday, December 05, 2008
Shame on the New York State Senate Democrats
Update (Weds. Dec 10): It looks like I may have spoken too soon. According to the latest news reports (via), the Senate Democratic leadership has called off negotiations with the homophobic three, saying "we would rather wait two more years to take charge of the Senate." Bravo for them!
(END UPDATE. What follows is the original (now superseded) post.)
It seems that the deal just reached to organize the NY State Senate with a Democratic majority was achieved by agreeing not to bring a bill to allow gay and lesbian citizens equal marriage rights to a vote. (Blog links via.) (Back story: The bill passed the house last term, and the Governor has promised to sign it, but the Senate has heretofore refused to bring it to a vote; the hope had been that the November Democratic capture of the Senate (32-30) would allow it to proceed.)
Shame on the Democrats of New York, who have achieved power by selling out the rights of our gay and lesbian citizens. And shame above all on Pedro Espada, Rubén DÃaz and Carl Kruger who insisted upon the maintenance of this injustice. I have no doubt that these little Wallaces squatting in the doors of marriage rights will be, in the end, remembered with the disdain they have earned. But it's little consolation to a movement for equality that has taken far too many blows recently.
I had hoped for better from my state. I really did.
Now to target the supporters of bigotry, and elect people who will recognize the rights of all their constituents -- not just some.
(END UPDATE. What follows is the original (now superseded) post.)
It seems that the deal just reached to organize the NY State Senate with a Democratic majority was achieved by agreeing not to bring a bill to allow gay and lesbian citizens equal marriage rights to a vote. (Blog links via.) (Back story: The bill passed the house last term, and the Governor has promised to sign it, but the Senate has heretofore refused to bring it to a vote; the hope had been that the November Democratic capture of the Senate (32-30) would allow it to proceed.)
Shame on the Democrats of New York, who have achieved power by selling out the rights of our gay and lesbian citizens. And shame above all on Pedro Espada, Rubén DÃaz and Carl Kruger who insisted upon the maintenance of this injustice. I have no doubt that these little Wallaces squatting in the doors of marriage rights will be, in the end, remembered with the disdain they have earned. But it's little consolation to a movement for equality that has taken far too many blows recently.
I had hoped for better from my state. I really did.
Now to target the supporters of bigotry, and elect people who will recognize the rights of all their constituents -- not just some.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)