Buscaraons
Arabnews never ceases to surprise
Over at Charles Johson's blog, there's Arab news.com article that's actually
rational Rasheed Abou-Alsamh is the the columnist. While I echo Stefan Sharkansky's
comment and hold out some modest hope, I'm still deeply skeptical. Abou-Alsamh's article is still talk and I doubt very much that he'll change any minds. In fact, the Arabs don't want to change mind, engage in debate or simply introspect about their share in the terrorist attacks.
In fact, here's another article that brings Arabnews.com back to
form Do the journalists really think we're impressed by that photo? Pleeze! we recognize propganda when we see it and understand that the photo as well as the statements are simply for Saudi consumption.
By the way, the Americans aren't accusing you of funding religious extremists, they're exposing your contributions. Isn't it rather strange that a Saudi charity which ostensibly helps out the Bosian war victims has photos of American landmarks, money, documents and materiels that suggest a front for non-charitable activities? What about the chemicals found in another Saudi charity in Afghanistan?
I'll keep hope in a small corner but skepticism stays.
Hey American TV stations: start the season already!
Hey ABC, CBS, FOX and NBC, why does the new TV season start at the end of September? Stop wasting my time with all the hype surrounding the new season. I'm not particularly excited, I'm not faint from anticipation nor am I particularly intrigued. So start the season immediately and if I don't like a show, I won't watch and concentrate on those that I do. By the way, you gotta come up with a better buisness plan: 90% of your shows are duds to begin with. That inspires lots of confidence in your productions.
Gone on a trip
Just wanted my readers to know that I'm gone on Sunday and should return Tuesday, blogging will resume on Wednesday
D'abord c'est la Corse; ensuite c'est l'Alasce
Le Monde mentionne que Raffarin a signé une entente avec le gouvernmenet alsacitien afin de
décentraliser le pays. Enfin! Bien qu'il s'agisse d'une expérimentation, il faut dire que la France bénéficera beaucoup avec cette décentralisation. Selon moi, Chirac et son gouvernment constaent que l'état jacobin est non seulement dépassé mais un véritable obstacle pour le dévéloppment français. Ce n'est pas à l'état central à tout géréer, tout méner, tout contrôler. Cette obséssion demontrait une manque de confiance envers les citoyens et les regions; un peur que sans la supervision d'un préfet la France se morcellerait.
La décision de Raffarain démontre que la France se sent assez confient, ses institutions sont assez solide que ni l'honneur de la Républic ni l'intégrite territoriale nes sont pas enjeux.
En autre, Chirac met en oeuvre ses convictions girondiennes et il prépare sérénement les français à la signature de la Charte européenne de langues minoritaires et la reconnaissance juridique de ces langues régionales dans le pays.
¿ Qué hubiese pasado si Alemanía habría sufrido un atentado?
La Vanguardia destaca esta
detención 2 persones- un de orígen turco junto con su novia américana- habian sido detenidos bajo sospecha de poeseer materia unos 130 kg de quimicos del cual se podría fabricar explosivos. Segun fuestes policiales la pareja tal vez hubise preparado un ataque a la base aéra americana o al centro de en Heidelburg. Esta revelación es significativa. Primeramente, presionará Schroder a cambiar su posición electoral que Alemanía no participará de manera ninguna en cualquiera intervención en Irak. Segundamente, ¿cómo hubiese respondido los ciudadanos y el gobierno a un ataque en suelo alemán? Presumo que los alemánes cambiarían de día a noche en su actitud hacía el terrorismo y tal vez hacía Irak. Una cosa es seguro que la oposición europea a la política américana no les inmunizarán de nada. Al contrario, los terroristas del islamismo integrante atacará a foritori Europe afin de dividir los alidados y ganar una victoria estratégica.
British membership in the EU: an Anglosphere critique
James Bennett and Iain Murray have posted their critique of my article
Many thanks for their critique. I admit that I'm a bit chagrined to have followed Kipling's White man burden theory and deeply dismayed when James points out that I've articulated the American State Department's and the pro-European Tories faction's positions on the subject.
I must admit that I was discouraged because I had no intention to parrot anyone; I simply wanted to advance, erroniously as it turns out, was a moderate position. I'm growing increasingly alarmed by the estrangement between Britian and the European Union. The serious rows between both is in neither's interests. I fear that the Union might retaliate with a neo-Continental system that would be totally couterproductive. Nevertheless, I understand Iain's critique of this perspective. It's simply not in Britian's best interest to seek closer ties with the Union; the former simply can't prevent the growing authoritarianism of the latter. There's no political will in Brussels or any other European capital. I underestimated the role that national and Unionist interest as well political resolve have in European politics. Nevertheless, what about the regions?
The European regions could play an important role in tempering the Union's centralist and statist tendencies. I should've been far more explicit and included the European regions as potential allies to more extensive British participation in the Union when I turned my attention to the civil society. Indeed, the very notion of network commonwealths could present political opportunities that had hithertofor been unclear or unnoticed. As James reminded me, the advantage of network commonwealths is that they need not be limited by geography. All in all, Iain and James' critiques have been most instructive in exposing the flaws in my arguments and the inadequacy of my analyses. I have much to reflect.
MEMRI 's translation: the slience of the cementaries
This
article is simply pathetic. Torture by killing of the infidels will bring them to the path of righteousness? You won't bring the Ulema through blood, fire and war. What Al Qui'ada proposes is yet again another embrace of the culture of death. The 20
th sufficed and we don't need another century of anti-human fanatics who'll implement darkness yet again. Al Qu'ada's peace is the silence of the cementaries.
The hubris of its membership is really boring. They demand the benefits of modern science and technology to obliterate the kaffir but fear the link between the former with the freedom to live as one pleases. In the end, it's Al Qua'ida that'll be destroyed. Foundations of hate and loathing are less solid than those of air and illusions.
France Télécom: débarrassez-la!
Le Figaro mentionne que l'état soutiendra
France télécommalgré les pertes historique de cette dernière. Voici une suggestion: vend-la! France et les usagers téléphoniques bénéficeront lorsque la monopole de la Télécom serait rompue. Plus de pertes astromoniques que les contribuables devront subventionner. 10 millards des pertes est dangereuse pour une société car pour essuyer une prete de cette maginitude risque à boulverser les marchés financiers. L'État devra prêter ce montant La compétition entre les diveres télécoms restaura un bon service à la clientèle, une baisse de prix et des bénéfices même. Une chose est certaine, les contribuable ne pourront plus engloutir une perte de telle magnitude dans le futur.
Aprendre una llengua es subversiva
Una professora saudita lamenta que aprendre l'anglès es
subversiu Sí, sí. Preferix tenir una identitat forta que fluixa per que l'arab i la cultura saudita son amenaçats pel anglès i la cultura occidental. Aquests incalculen idees subverises com il.lusionar una jova a ser modela de passarella. ¡Ostres carai, quina subversió! No podem pas deixar que nostres joves tinguin cap idea original car la millor manera de protegir la cultura i llengua es de memortizar pàgines i pàgines del Qoran. Empentar l'alfabetisme, reformar l'educació per a ensenyar displines modernes, obrir-se al món, ¡oblida-ho! Es més important perfeccionar l'art de mirar-se el mèlic que d'aprendre una llengua dels kàfirs que sigui anglès o àdhuc le català.
Oren: Where the righteous anger?
Michael Oren- authour of the Six days war- asks where is America's righteous
anger Good question. I guess that it's much harder to mobilize against a branch office of Terrorism International than a sovereign state but Oren dissmises that facile factor and argues more convincingly that a profound transformation in American culture has taken place since WW II and 11 Sept. There havent been any call sfor sel-sacrifice nor have people volunteered in droves. In fact,the FBI has become fastidious with respect to hiring citizens with foreign language skills and airport security is a constant source of derision. So a serious of cultures changes, government bumbling and civic reluctance towards self sacrifice have led to a radically different response.
Why I want Britian to join the EU
Preface
Over the years, many pundits, columnists and bloggers have articulated reasonable and cogent arguments against British membership in the European Union. By contrast, very few have advanced arguments in favour of British membership. This monograph will advance those argument in favour of British adherence to the Union but limits them to three principal areas: federalism, economics and civil society.
To be perfectly forthright, I care very little if I advance are hetrodoxic, controversial or shocking. Too much of what I read smack of a sourness that Britian no longer has the political and economic influence to prevent European unification as in the past. Further the British ambivalence towards the European Union risks antagonizing its members and potentially realizing Britian's fear of a neo-Continental System. Nevertheless, Europe needs Britian as much as the the latter the former. Britian's adherence to the Union would challenge the statist, centralist and bureaucratic consensus in the latter's consolidation.
Federalism
The European Union is betraying its federalist principles in order to embrace a centralist, statist, indeed jacobin political culture. The Eurocrats mistakenly presume that to create a European identity, decentralization and respect for local autonomy are hinderances rather than assets. Unfortuantely for the Europeans, they are substituting national centralism with a supranational one. European federalist principles emphasizing local autonomy, decentralization and respect for regional cultures have never prospered robustly during the 3 centuries of national centralism and those principles risk being totally subsumed by the new European centralist tradition.
By contrast, federalism in British political culture is a recessive trait that become dominant when the British go abroad. We only need to survey its largest ex-colonies, Canada, Australia, the United States and India are federations. By and large, they are successful as political regimes and satisfy their citizens' aspirations. To praise British federalism is not to romanticize it; nevertheless, the fact that the British federalist tradition has thrived in demanding conditions in new continenets that never experienced British political culture, gives confidence that British federalism would succced in Europe.
British membership in the European Union would temper its centralism, statism and bureaucratism by introducing subsidary political values: external oversight, accountability and responsible government. Moreover, Britian could act as a 'regional' country and energize the regions to demand that the European Union respect subsidarity and not intervene in areas that are best left to the local authourities. Finally Englans'd presence in the Union would give greater credibility to a more decentralized political regime- that Europe will succeed when it's a mosaic of regions, countries and blocs of localities much like the Roman Empire at its height or the Empire of Charles V of Spain. To decentralize is to show sufficent confidence in one's political institutions that to delegate authourity locally.Suich delegations demonstrates that the central authourity has nothing to fear from the localities.
The economy
The European economies have a strong statist element. The European Union is merely continuing those national policies. It's easy for the anti-Unionist Anglophiles to scorn the European penchant to use the state to stimulate their development. Nonetheless, such scorn is unfair. It mustn't be forgotten that many European states industralized at a much later date than Britian. Late industralization is more complex and capital-intensive than the British industrial revolution; also, the industralizing European countrie not only had to develop their industries but had to compete against Britisn which was the greatest industrial and economic power for many centuries. There was no reasonable alternative to avoid teh state. Indeed most citizens enthusistically supported the state's intervention. Where the British, and European pro-market, commentators have a legitmate point is that there are moments when the state bceomes an obstacle not a stimulus for further industralization. Determining when the state becomes problematic is unclear but there are ways of find out.
It's reasonable to state that the contemporary Europan Union's developmental policies are too statist and too interventionist. Britian's membership in the European Union would call into question the inertial tendency to rely on the state. True, Britian would find it a challenge to convince reticent Europeans that a less rigid market economy with more flexible legislation with respect to labour, capital formation fiscal policy and social policies is as effective in foster solidatity and concértation that they so crave. It's fair to say that Europe has never really implemented market-oriented capitalism.British membership would at least spur the European Union to give market-oriented capitalism a try if only to disprove 'neo-liberalism'
Civil society
European civil society has historically been more limited than its British counterpart. Especially so in influencing politics. Nonetheless, the various institutions and entities that currently exist in the European Union are particularly robust, their main weakness is that they still look too much to the state for legitimacy and for financial support. British membership in the European Union would stimulate the European civil society to look less towards the state for affirmation and towards fellow citizens to assocate and advocate common issues of interest. One of the strengths of British civil society is its civic volunteerism. The European civil society would benefit immensly from the beneficial effects of civic volunteerism. Once again the Union's statist, centralist and legalistic tendencies would be tempered through an infinite multitude of civic entities vying for its attention or shame.
Conclusion
The British objection to membership in the European Union are legitimate. Nevertheless, it's in Britian's interest to be a member than to be outside if it wishes to temper the Union's statist, centralist, legalist and bureaucratic political culture. The suspicions between the Europeans and the anti-Unionist British are both counterproductive and unjustified. Britian and Europe would benefit with the former's membership. Together, they would make the European Union be a positive entity in world affairs.
Look at the past: Saud and the Palestinans
Arabnews decides to look
back to ibn Saud- founder of the dynasty and the geographical landmass that bears his name- to reminisce how the founder concerned himself with the Palestinan problem. The article is extremely lengthy matched only by its sychophancy
It's clear that Saud's diplomacy to evict the Jews from that little corner of the Mideast has been a resouding failure. Moreover, the failure stems from blatant lies and wishful thinking.
The most egregious lie is that the Jews and the Arabs lived in harmony and peace under the British Mandate. Right, readers can surmise that the 1929 riots are an edifying example of coexistence or that the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem's speeches throught the war as well as his enthusiaism for Hitler are models of ecumenism that should be emulated.
Alos let's not forget how the British military and the Colonial Office were shining examples of evenhanded fairness especially in 1947 when the British Army in the Mideast simply handed their military over to the emerging Arab states and did everything in their power to implede both Jewish refugees and weapons from coming into the Mandate territory.
The wishful thinking is the obsession that the Jews and the creation of Israel are artificial constructs that would simply disappear once the Arabs made a show of unity and discoursed grandiloquent speeches. Unfortunately for Saud, neither the Israelis nor the Americans were impressed because the Saudis do great theater but won't risk a direct confrontation; better to fund the good fight and fight the war to the last Palestinean, Jordianian, Egyptian, Syrian and Lebanese. Plausible deniability is more important than actually resolving the Palestinan crisis.
The branding of Zionism and racism is certainly one of those high watermarks for the UN that made the world such a better place and bestowed on the international institutiongreat moral authourity. The Durban Conference merely soldified the UN's relevance in the Mideast crisis.
All in all, it's clear that Saud's diplomatic efforts are categorical failures. Current Saudi policies are doomed to failure as well. Israel won't disappear from the map; Jews won't emigrate to America and the Palestinans will have a fate worse than the Kurds with the repect to the establishment of a Palestinan state.
James Zogby: The rights were always defended!
James Zogby drones on about how Arab American rights have been
defended Very nice James, why don't you use that laudable committment as a point of departure to muse about respecting rights within Arab lands.
For example, what did the attitude of the Saudi dads' before the Chuck Hagel's bipartisain delegation tell you about Arab respect for the rights of their dual citizen children? Moving on to Egypt: Why can't 10% of the population- better known as Copts- renovate their churches, build new one, worship in peace live lives without the cosntant threat of death by harrassment? Where's the idealized Moselm tolerence for religious minories that's so superior to what the West offers?
Finally, where the strong language that that unequivocally condemns the virulent anti-Jewish hatred and sucide bombings? Until then I really couldn't care less about reading how Americans stand up to their fellow citizaen. In a democracy as robust as the Americans, it's an expectation not an ad hoc committment.
Sobre la Guerra Hispano-America de '98
Aquest demati, he escrit un article en anglès sobre la guerra del '98 on els americans intervingueren en favor dels independentistes. Papa i jo sempre discutem si el espanyols i els colonialistes haguéssin concertat un accord abans de l'intervenció americana. papa opina que no. Que ja era massa tard i els governs successius s'en mostrat massa podrits per sortir-se'n amb un modus vivideni.
Potser sí papa té molta raó;però al mateix temps, els independentistes perdien la guerra i sense la mala sort de l'explosió del Maine, suspito que els espanyols haurien gaunyat la guerra però haguéssin d'haver fetes algunes concessions si més no per evitar un nou escalatament més tard al futur. El desfet d'Espanya a la Guerra del '98 havia tingunt unes conseqüències nefestes per el país com per a Catalunya. La politíca esdevengué absoluta i intransigent. Doncs, tot compromís n'era impossble car per un cantó de compremetre-se per que això significaria una pert insignificant que sigui. Mira, la dificultat pel catalanisme d'arrancar quansevulla delgació de poder del centre fins la IIa República, l'impossibilitat de legisferar les reformes de les terres en Andulusia, incapacitat del reformistes i els conservadors de cedir un pas sobre els temes del dia enacra que sigui al millor interès del país. Tothom avava a la seva.
Llavors ja es traçava la linia recta que conduiria cap a la Guerra civil espanyola.
Tot per que els americans volien un imperi ràpid i sense suor de bastir un propri. La tragèdia es que els americans no en calien un.
James Taranto: Best of the web tanned, relaxed and ready
Well well well well, James is back from
vacation and great to see him back in stride. Not a missed beat despite the 3 week vacation. So head over and snicker at the latest follies of the powerful, the modest, the weak, the strong, the bright and the dumb. La comédie humaine et la rentrée a commencé pour de vrai!
James Zogby: The rights were always defended!
James Zogby drones on about how Arab American rights have been
defended Very nice James, why don't you use that laudable committment as a point of departure to muse about respecting rights within Arab lands.
For example, what did the attitude of the Saudi dads' before the Chuck Hagel's bipartisain delegation tell you about Arab respect for the rights of their dual citizen children? Moving on to Egypt: Why can't 10% of the population- better known as Copts- renovate their churches, build new one, worship in peace live lives without the cosntant threat of death by harrassment? Where's the idealized Moselm tolerence for religious minories that's so superior to what the West offers?
Finally, where the strong language that that unequivocally condemns the virulent anti-Jewish hatred and sucide bombings? Until then I really couldn't care less about reading how Americans stand up to their fellow citizaen. In a democracy as robust as the Americans, it's an expectation not an ad hoc committment.
Sobre la Guerra Hispano-America de '98
Aquest demati, he escrit un article en anglès sobre la guerra del '98 on els americans intervingueren en favor dels independentistes. Papa i jo sempre discutem si el espanyols i els colonialistes haguéssin concertat un accord abans de l'intervenció americana. papa opina que no. Que ja era massa tard i els governs successius s'en mostrat massa podrits per sortir-se'n amb un modus vivideni.
Potser sí papa té molta raó;però al mateix temps, els independentistes perdien la guerra i sense la mala sort de l'explosió del Maine, suspito que els espanyols haurien gaunyat la guerra però haguéssin d'haver fetes algunes concessions si més no per evitar un nou escalatament més tard al futur. El desfet d'Espanya a la Guerra del '98 havia tingunt unes conseqüències nefestes per el país com per a Catalunya. La politíca esdevengué absoluta i intransigent. Doncs, tot compromís n'era impossble car per un cantó de compremetre-se per que això significaria una pert insignificant que sigui. Mira, la dificultat pel catalanisme d'arrancar quansevulla delgació de poder del centre fins la IIa República, l'impossibilitat de legisferar les reformes de les terres en Andulusia, incapacitat del reformistes i els conservadors de cedir un pas sobre els temes del dia enacra que sigui al millor interès del país. Tothom avava a la seva.
Llavors ja es traçava la linia recta que conduiria cap a la Guerra civil espanyola.
Tot per que els americans volien un imperi ràpid i sense suor de bastir un propri. La tragèdia es que els americans no en calien un.
James Taranto: Best of the web tanned, relaxed and ready
Well well well well, James is back from
vacation and great to see him back in stride. Not a missed beat despite the 3 week vacation. So head over and snicker at the latest follies of the powerful, the modest, the weak, the strong, the bright and the dumb. La comédie humaine et la rentrée a commencé pour de vrai!
Kristoff on the Midwest: thoughts about expansionism
Yesterday, I came across a thoughtful post by Christopher Johnson of the Midwest conversative journal analyzing Kristoff's article about American expanison to the Midwest. I contacted Christopher and pointed out to him that I disagreed with Kristoff. The America's mistake was the Mexican-American war. That Santa Anna was a despotic, coked out- he was an opium addict- meglomanic tyrant is indisputable but let's leave aside the Disneyfication of the Alamo- it was a rebellion and the Mexicans did have a legitimate right to put it down. Sadly, Santa Anna is one of those personalities that where he could've shown a calculated mercy, he chose gratuitious brutality.
In any case, Charles commented on my reflections and then I thought of another time when American expansionism was both gratuitious and deeply disturbing: the Spanish American war.
To me it's pretty obvious that the Americans wanted an empire and discovered that Cuba was close enough and Spain weak enough to wrest the island from the latter. Cuba had been fighting Spain partly over accumulated greivences and a confused desire to be independent. The Spanish army was slowly winning the war to the point that both sides would've negotiated some sort of settlement. American intervention cynically exploitated by the Maine explosion, not only metamorphisized the strategic balance permenantly in favour of the independence forces but had a devastating effect on Spain when it was defeated.
If there's one thing that you immediately pick up in reading the Spanish intelligensia of the Generación '98 is that the society is a fuck up. No matter what the state or the society did, it was going to fail and do so spectacularly, unequivocally. Consequently politics become absolutist and intransigent. No compromise was possible nor desired. That attitude set Spain towards its Civil war: it was either the reformers or the conservatives that would prevail. It wasn't until 1975, that all sides finally worked out a modus vivendi that's held.
Americans should ask themselves if they ran the Phillipines, Cuba and Puerto Rico any better than Spain. My view is no. Cuba is under the throes of one of the most brutal, despotic, bloody, meglomanic tyrannies in history; the Phillipines is politically bizarre- a patina of American derived institutions badly fitted to 4 centuries of Spanish colonization- as well as an economic basket case (true the Japanese occupation, robbery and American liberation destroyed the island but what did the Americans do from 1898-1941?) and Puerto Rico, less than a state more than a colony.
In conclusion, America could've still catapulted itself on the world state as a major power without the need of the Spanish American war.
Update: I sent Christopher a grovelling apology for my mistake over his name. How I could confuse him with Charles of Little green footballs is truly embarassing (I'll just blame it on the identical but unrelated family names. So there :) )
Charles of Little greenfootballs does it again
One of Charles' readers contacted the American branch of Oxford University press about Bradley's axe job on Oren's
book Thanks to Peter Ginna's permission, Charles was able to repost the former's letter in response to Bradely. Charles and his reader deserve much praise to bring Bradley's intemperate outburst to the publisher's attention. Peter Ginna's letter is a model of respectful disagreement that still bites. More importantly, Charles has once again done us a great service and demonstrates just how influential blogs have become. Blogs like Charles and so many others are the best tribute to the memories of those that died on 11 September. Blogging honours the civilizational committment to understand circumstances, to seek out the truth and to sustain debates on important issues of the day even in wartime
Le Somme du dévéloppement: la connerie institutionalisée
Le Monde rapport du discours de
Mugabe qui lança hier une attaque virulente enver l'occident en général et à l'Angleterre en particulier. Les autres délégations du monde en dévéloppment industriel l'ont applaudie. Pas brilliant comme stratégie à convaincre les pays industralisés que leur protectionisme est en contradiction avec leurs politiques de libre=échage. En plus, fustiger ces mêmes pays-là qui supposémment contrôlent le commerce mondial garnatiira qu au moment que vous aurez besoin des alliés dand d'autres conférence mondiales vous ne l'aurez pas.
Un pétit conseil à Mugabe et compagnon- allez donc chier! Vous avez tous faites dans vos pays outre que légisférer des lois qui combattent la corruption, assurer la transparence dans l'administration publique, adopter le capitalisme et l'economie du marché. Vous osez à travers votre témerité d'accuser les pays industrialisés de vous bloquer! Introspectez un peu messieurs et mesdames du pays en voie de dévéloppement!
Cardenal inflama imnecesariamente la rétorica
Cardenal- Fiscal general del Esatdo- ha calificado los integrente de Batasuna como
'nazis' ante el Tribunal supremo. Francamente, es gratuito y una falta de profesionalismo de la parte del Fiscal. El mayor representante estatal a los oraganos judicales debe controlar sus emociones y que previnga decir disbarates que podrian prejudicar el caso sub judicie. No es al Fiscal a calificar Batasuna excepto que decien las leyes que se apliquen en contra el partido político. En este caso la Ley de los partidos. Es un vicio típico de políticos y advocados a discursar sin pensar. Al Fiscal lo paguémos para tener un poco de cabeza. Su disbarate demuestra una falta de jugzado y una persona quién se exalta por su rétorica. Sin duda el TS le pondrá en orden y le ordenará a cerra el pico durante el resto del proceso.
Charles Johnson of Midwest conservative journal: free plug!
Thanks to Charles for the free
plug! I highly recommend Charles' blog! I've been reading before I even had my own. So please stop by and browse the articles.
On martial roles over time
My girlfriend Trina asked me an interesting question over the weekend about martial roles over time. She wonders if the changes in realtions between husband and wife are based on perception or something else.
I don't have any definitive answers on the subject but I've mused on the topic for some time and here are my thoughts.
The roles are based on simple obserbvations: guys are usually stronger and taller than women; while women give birth to babies. These observations later lead the collectivity- the family, the clan, the tribe to ritualize these observable differences into the symbolic. I suppose it's a way ro give order or to organize the collective's guiding principles.
Most societies prety much followed the rituals without much questioning . A change occured with the rise of critical inquiry in the Greek mainland in the 8 century BC. From then on, everything was scrutinized including martial roles. Once the roles of husband and wife were studied and debated, there's been a perennial back and forth between those that want to restrict a wife's role (and thus by extension the women's in the larger society) and those that want a more expansive role equal to men's. I wouldn't be surprised if couple themselves discreetly, quietly and informally worked out their own roles withing the limit of the collectivity's tolerance for tampering with 'nature.'
In the West, since the adoption of Christanity, the back and forth has been quiet intense at times. However, I'd argue that over the long run, the the trend has been- and remains- to prefer expanding the wife's role to be equal to the husband's. Frankly, how the martial roles evolve in the future depends on many factors from the women's own atitude to disasters that could befall society.
Rep Dan Burton comes back empty handed
Arabnews reports that an American bipartisan delgation lead by Dan Burton achieved no breakthrough with respect to American children by mixed
marriages Gee what a surprise. The demands made by the dads are egregious insults. American citizenship, guaranteed work and money. WTF! On top of that these creeps feign concern that if the kids visit their American moms they might be brought up in an unIslamic and were supposedly frustrated by the American judicial process.
Go fuck yourselves pig eaters.
You kidnap these kids, because the shame culture that you live in can't ever allow you to be bested by a women- especially a foreign infidel- brainswash the former to turn against their moms and her family, your countries thumb their noses at international child custody treaties and court decisions that enforce them and then you demand privileges that reward your crimes. You should all be in jail not visiting the U.S. anytime you please.
The moral of the story is that until Moslems demand from the doctors of the law to amend its child custody laws as defined by the sharia, Westerners- both men and women- should frankly avoid marrying Moslems. The potential for child custody disputes where the Westerners will be shafted is a given and the kids will suffer needlessly. Too bad, the International Criminal Court is too busy looking for Westerners to bust on trumped up crimes against humanity charges; rather than prosecuting real criminal who violate real international laws.
Le rôle des instutitions culturelles étatiques: Nelson Ascher a raison
Prof Glenn a cité cet article de Nelson Ascher du rôle des institutions culturelles étatiques comme une façon de faire de la propagande et influencer des pais. C'est vrai que les Européens cultivent les écrivants Asiatiques, africain et Latinoaméricans en les invitent aux pays pour donner des conférences, en décernant de prix littéaires et en publicant ou diffusant leurs travaux. Bref les Européens les prendent au sérieux et récompense les talent de ces artistes et écrivains étrangers.
Par contraste, les Américans n'ont pas cette tradition, et depuis les dernières vigntaine d'années, cette cultivation des écrivains, artistes étranger se rarifient d'autant plus pusique les Américans se sont devenu provinicaux. ce n'est pas seulment moi qui lamente cet étroissement d'esprits. Jean-François Revel, que nul ne peut accuser d'anti-américanisme, se plaint du même phènomene dans son article «Le péril suprême:Disneyland» dans Fin du siècle
Une partie du problème réside au fait que les institutions d'enesignement américianes ont abdiqué dans leur tâche d'enseigner les enfants. Une autre problème c'est que la société américane décourage l'apprentissage des langues étrangère- on voit les conséquence de ce désintéressement dans la lutte contre l'islamisme intégriste où ni le CIA ni les forces armées américans disposaient assez de personnel qui parlaient et entendaient le pastoun etc.
Le dernier facteur c'est la vitalité de la culture populaire américaine. Elle est si vigoureuse qu'elle donne une fausse impréssion que le monde veut imiter l'Amérique ce qui n'est pas toujours le cas
Den Beste and American military equipment: some correctives
I enjoy reading Den Beste; however, whenever he talks about the American military and its equipment, I get profoundly annoyed and some correctives are in order. A case in point is this article I generally agree with his assessment until he states that American military equipment is the best. The assertion is debatable.
The American military industry doesn't have a monopoly on excellence. I'd argue that the Leopard II is just as comparable to the Abrams. In fact, if you take a good look at those non-Western countries, that can afford to buy high quality weapons, they tend to buy a mix of American and Allied equipment.
If there's one thing that I despise about the American military is its smugness in refusing to adopt NATO or Allied military equipment until the 80s. Indeed, their outlook was that Lend-Lease was still in effect and the European allies' sole obligation was to shut up and acritically buy American equipment. A classical case is the competition between the Leopard II and Abrams prototypes in the late 70s.
In 1973, the Americans quite sensibly were pushing for standardized tank components as a more efficient way to lessen the logistical. The German government arrived at the logical conclusion and proposed that both countries adopt a common tank. Steven Zaloga states that the American military leaders were dismayed Michael Jerchel, for his part, argues in his booklet that the American military never had any intention of ever adopting the Leopard II. They just went through the motions to please Congress so as not to jeopardize the selection of the Abrams. In fact, one of the reasons that the Abrams tank is so good is because the American engineers ripped off some of the German prototypes' technology.
Sure the American and Germans signed a memorandum of understanding that the Rheinmetall 120 mm tank cannon would be incorporated into future versions of the Abrams as well standarization of the major tank components but it was still a sop to outraged ally.
It wasn't the first time that the American military rejected European arms. Already at the founding of NATO there was a very controversial debate for a standard rifle and calibre. The Europeans- with the exception of the British- wanted to adopted to adopt the FN FAL rifle in an intermediate cartidge, like 7,92 kurz developed for the MP 44 assault rifle, or 7 mm. The Americans were stubborn and wanted NATO to adopt the 7,62x51 mm (the WW II ,30 calibre cartidge was 7,62x63 mm. Thank to advances in propellant technology, the Americans were able to reduce the calibre's length)The Europeans refused because the American justifications for the new rifle bullet were directly contradicted by the very recent wartime experiences with the MP 44 and the STG 45, an improved version of the MP 44. The Europeans wanted the Americans to adopt the FN rifle. There was even an American prototype (the Springfield T 44) but the military rejected and in fact wanted to sell the Europeans the M-14 rifle, basically a modernized WW II Garand! So NATO's quest for standard rifle fell through. Yet what was particularly galling was that no sooner that NATO adopted the 7,62 mm cartridge in 1954; by 1957, the American arms designers were working on a new rifle cartidge that would become the 5,56 mm. No doubt the feverish redesign was spurred on by captured examples of the SKS rifle chambered for the news 7,62x 39 mm that the British and French brought back from the Suez
So 12 years after the Second World war and the interminable debates witin NATO over the appropriate rifle cartridge to adopt, the Americans realize that they were wrong; yet, in typical fashion, they went to the other extreme.
Tom Clancy on his book Special Forces points out that the 5,56mm bullets fire 'light'. In practical terms, 5,56 mm bullets can't penetrate sandbags! One proposed solution is to have sabot discarding bullets. Basically these would be similar in design to the depleted uranium tank shells that NATO uses but without that substance.
By the time of Regean's military build up the closed American military market was causing severe strains within the alliance. Yet the Europeans had allies within the American Congress. Many members were fed up with the military industry's goldplated weapons that took decades to produce and were frankly mediocre. The Congressmen also wanted to control costs, restore competition and assuage furious NATO Allies; so they decided to lay down the law to the American military via legislation that obliged them to buy NATO/Allied equipment. The effects have been excellent: The American military finally adopted Allied military equipment that has become popular with the soldiers, such as the Light Armoured Vehicle (LAV) and competition has been restored within the American military equipment market.
To reiterate, the American military industries do make excellent weapons and equipment but they don't own a monopoly on excellence.
Nick in Barcelona
Nick's article about his viist in
Barcelona triggers fun memories about language,appearances and accents. As someone born in North America, speaks Catalan and Spanish with an accent, I can spot either as well. It's not hard... honestly! Interestingly, most Catalans and Spanish have a hell of a time trying to pigeonhole me and my brothers: I look typically 'American' but I have a Catalan name and speak both Catalan and Spanish quite well despite the accent. Aaa yes, the joys of real multiculturalism and true globalization.
