Wednesday, August 24, 2005
Things we saw at Point Reyes
Tall pines in the mist, a pale nudibranch with a row of circles down its back, a loon chased by a seal, cliffhanging succulents, huckleberry trees heavy with fruit, a herd of multicolored fallow deer, a rubber boa, two garter snakes, mule deer, a dead jellyfish, boys with backpacks toting firewood, a beetle giving another a piggyback ride, the sea, ceanothus bushes, a tall horse, a Japanese woman wearing a Japanese hat, a pelican carcase, a solitary heron, a fallen tree that might serve perfectly as a bench, ferns, trees blackened by the Mount Vision fire with white lichen growing on them, a rock shaped like a face with spectacles, a man who told us we were in Mexico, poison oak.
Thursday, August 18, 2005
A friend replies, number 12
What do you regard as the lowest depth of misery?
Not being able to be with the ones I love the most. The 18th and 19th hours of a long long work day/night. When the body is not willing and the mind has turned into mush. Finishing those last few tasks as the sun rises. The world moving in infinite exciting directions around you, while you're toiling like a slave at some menial meaningless task. It's a soul killer.
Where would you like to live?
A victorian house on a wooded plot with a stream running through the backyard. I would like to have toads on my property. Owls are also a must. Maybe somewhere near Bodega Bay.
What is your idea of earthly happiness?
Earthly happiness is limited. I want to love and be loved, be validated by my peers. Air my soul out in distant lands. Make beautiful music for people to enjoy. Laugh until I'm out of breath. A lane of my own on the freeway.
To what faults do you feel most indulgent?
Internet porn, coffee, ice cream
Who are your favorite heroes of fiction?
Jesus, Bertie Wooster, James Bond
Who are your favorite characters in history?
Jesus, Gandhi, �
Who are your favorite heroines in real life?
Janet Reno, Mother Theresa, single moms.
Who are your favorite heroines of fiction?
Emma Woodhouse, Agent 99.
Your favorite painter?
I don't know, maybe Elizabeth Peyton�
Your favorite musician?
Forgive me for saying the obvious: John Lennon.
The quality you most admire in a man?
Big balls and speaks the truth.
The quality you most admire in a woman?
Nice rack and speaks the truth.
Your favorite virtue?
Truth.
Your favorite occupation?
Berlin. Least favorite would be Iraq.
Who would you have liked to be?
An civil engineer, or architect with panache and hutspa (I don't know how to spell that word).
Not being able to be with the ones I love the most. The 18th and 19th hours of a long long work day/night. When the body is not willing and the mind has turned into mush. Finishing those last few tasks as the sun rises. The world moving in infinite exciting directions around you, while you're toiling like a slave at some menial meaningless task. It's a soul killer.
Where would you like to live?
A victorian house on a wooded plot with a stream running through the backyard. I would like to have toads on my property. Owls are also a must. Maybe somewhere near Bodega Bay.
What is your idea of earthly happiness?
Earthly happiness is limited. I want to love and be loved, be validated by my peers. Air my soul out in distant lands. Make beautiful music for people to enjoy. Laugh until I'm out of breath. A lane of my own on the freeway.
To what faults do you feel most indulgent?
Internet porn, coffee, ice cream
Who are your favorite heroes of fiction?
Jesus, Bertie Wooster, James Bond
Who are your favorite characters in history?
Jesus, Gandhi, �
Who are your favorite heroines in real life?
Janet Reno, Mother Theresa, single moms.
Who are your favorite heroines of fiction?
Emma Woodhouse, Agent 99.
Your favorite painter?
I don't know, maybe Elizabeth Peyton�
Your favorite musician?
Forgive me for saying the obvious: John Lennon.
The quality you most admire in a man?
Big balls and speaks the truth.
The quality you most admire in a woman?
Nice rack and speaks the truth.
Your favorite virtue?
Truth.
Your favorite occupation?
Berlin. Least favorite would be Iraq.
Who would you have liked to be?
An civil engineer, or architect with panache and hutspa (I don't know how to spell that word).
My prostate
from BBC News
Vegan diet 'cuts prostate cancer risk'
A vegan diet may have health benefits
A vegan diet might lower the risk of developing prostate cancer, say researchers.
They have found that men who eat a vegan diet have lower levels of a growth factor that is associated with prostate cancer than either meat-eaters or vegetarians.
The research's publication comes after controversy about claims that dairy-free diets prevent breast cancer.
Earlier studies have suggested that the risk of prostate cancer is increased by high levels of the growth factor IGF-I.
Other research has shown that prostate cancer rates are generally low in countries with a low consumption of meat and dairy products.
The new study, by the Imperial Cancer Research Fund's Cancer Epidemiology Unit in Oxford, reveals IGF-I levels are 9% lower in vegans than in meat-eaters.
First evidence
Dr Tim Key, senior scientist at the charity, said: "Previous studies have shown that men with prostate cancer have higher levels of IGF-I and that even small differences in the circulating level are predictive of prostate cancer risk.
"Our study shows that the circulating level of IGF-I is different in vegan men than it is in non-vegans, including vegetarians.
"The lower levels of IGF-I found in vegan men might reduce their risk of prostate cancer."
There has been much coverage in the media about the possible effect of a dairy-free diet on breast and prostate cancer risk.
However, until now there has been no scientific evidence to prove the anti-cancer benefits of a vegan diet.
Dr Key said: "More research is needed before it would be possible to say whether having a vegan diet reduces a man's risk of prostate cancer."
The study, carried out in 696 British men, also found IGF-1 levels were slightly lower in vegetarians than meat-eaters.
The men in the study were taken from a larger European study (EPIC), which is looking at the relationship between diet and cancer to follow-up and check for prostate cancer in men with different dietary habits.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/782959.stm
Also interesting: http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/70/3/525S
Vegan diet 'cuts prostate cancer risk'
A vegan diet may have health benefits
A vegan diet might lower the risk of developing prostate cancer, say researchers.
They have found that men who eat a vegan diet have lower levels of a growth factor that is associated with prostate cancer than either meat-eaters or vegetarians.
The research's publication comes after controversy about claims that dairy-free diets prevent breast cancer.
Earlier studies have suggested that the risk of prostate cancer is increased by high levels of the growth factor IGF-I.
Other research has shown that prostate cancer rates are generally low in countries with a low consumption of meat and dairy products.
The new study, by the Imperial Cancer Research Fund's Cancer Epidemiology Unit in Oxford, reveals IGF-I levels are 9% lower in vegans than in meat-eaters.
First evidence
Dr Tim Key, senior scientist at the charity, said: "Previous studies have shown that men with prostate cancer have higher levels of IGF-I and that even small differences in the circulating level are predictive of prostate cancer risk.
"Our study shows that the circulating level of IGF-I is different in vegan men than it is in non-vegans, including vegetarians.
"The lower levels of IGF-I found in vegan men might reduce their risk of prostate cancer."
There has been much coverage in the media about the possible effect of a dairy-free diet on breast and prostate cancer risk.
However, until now there has been no scientific evidence to prove the anti-cancer benefits of a vegan diet.
Dr Key said: "More research is needed before it would be possible to say whether having a vegan diet reduces a man's risk of prostate cancer."
The study, carried out in 696 British men, also found IGF-1 levels were slightly lower in vegetarians than meat-eaters.
The men in the study were taken from a larger European study (EPIC), which is looking at the relationship between diet and cancer to follow-up and check for prostate cancer in men with different dietary habits.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/782959.stm
Also interesting: http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/70/3/525S
Wednesday, August 17, 2005
Stones
There we were, four people, on the lake shore. Waves shhhhed among the pebbles. The smallest of us took a keen interest in the pebbles. Her flesh grew rosy in the cool lake water. A yellow lab took an interest in her rosy flesh. Bill Gates waved from across the way. It had all the makings of tragedy. I closed my eyes and focused on the blackberry seed between my incisors.
Inheritance
I inherited my father's long bones but not his ears. I inherited my mother's fine fair hair but not her eyes.
Why I live where I do
Alexandria is a most marvelous place, thieving, whoring, filling one's heart with buzzing confusion. Venice sends shimmers across one's days. I've visited these cities with Durrell and Roeg and others as my guides, but never have I set foot in them. After living in Chicago, Taipei, Santa Monica, Los Angeles, Beijing, I have always returned to the city where I was born, where my mother lives, where I run into Nat in the library and dream of the lives that might have been.
Many of my old friends have moved. Three live near Los Angeles, one in western Massachusetts. My sister left San Francisco a couple of years ago. My father hasn't lived here for a decade.
My work is mediated through the internet -- I could be anywhere. San Francisco is expensive and I often skip a meal or two to pay my rent. And it's a saddening place for me, a futile social experiment in a time of war and hatred, a place where I'm no longer fully integrated, a bit of a backwater.
But it's the only place I've ever thought of as my home, the only place I've felt no need to defend because its existence is as much an unchangeable given as my own. I love the other places I've lived and to say I love San Francisco is not quite accurate. I am the city, maybe. Maybe that's close.
Many of my old friends have moved. Three live near Los Angeles, one in western Massachusetts. My sister left San Francisco a couple of years ago. My father hasn't lived here for a decade.
My work is mediated through the internet -- I could be anywhere. San Francisco is expensive and I often skip a meal or two to pay my rent. And it's a saddening place for me, a futile social experiment in a time of war and hatred, a place where I'm no longer fully integrated, a bit of a backwater.
But it's the only place I've ever thought of as my home, the only place I've felt no need to defend because its existence is as much an unchangeable given as my own. I love the other places I've lived and to say I love San Francisco is not quite accurate. I am the city, maybe. Maybe that's close.
Tuesday, August 16, 2005
Interview with Alistair Crooke
Interview: Fostering Muslim-West dialogue
By Humayun Chaudhry
Monday 08 August 2005, 17:32 Makka Time, 14:32 GMT
Alastair Crooke is a former official with Britain's MI6 intelligence agency who has worked in some of the world's most dangerous hotspots.
He spent many years in the Arab and Muslim world and engaged in dialogue with Hamas and Hizb Allah, as well as facing paramilitary forces and drug cartels in Latin America and militias in Africa.
His last posting, based in Jerusalem, was as a senior adviser to the EU high representative on foreign affairs, Javier Solana.
During this time, Crooke helped end the Israeli siege of the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem in 2002 and worked to mediate the summer 2003 ceasefire between Palestinian armed groups and Israeli forces.
Now retired and leading his own non-profit organisation, Conflicts Forum, Crooke hopes to foster a broader dialogue between the Muslim world and the West.
Aljazeera.net spoke to him on the phone while he was in Lebanon recently.
We asked him about the London and Sharm al-Shaikh bombings, the war on terror and dialogue with Islamist groups.
Do you believe the London attacks are a consequence of Britain's participation in the war on Iraq?
I believe there is no causal motivation that has been established yet for what happened in London, on the two occasions, so I think it's difficult to say what is the causal trigger to these two events.
But I think it's very clear that there has been a great deal of anger and hostility that has risen from Muslims everywhere, from not only events in Iraq - that is an important element - but much more widely, in Afghanistan, but also the Palestinian issue and others, that has radicalised many young Muslims, not only in the UK but everywhere.
Would it be fair to say that Britain's role in Iraq increased the terror threat to the UK?
I think what one can say is, the role of Iraq - the events in Iraq - the way they have turned out, has increased the radicalisation of particularly young Muslims and here in the region [the Middle East].
It's very clear not only in Britain but even here in Lebanon in the camps [about 400,000 Palestinian refugees live in camps in Lebanon], people are angry and concerned about what they see happening in Afghanistan and Iraq, and even the policy towards Iran.
How do you explain the apparent increase in bombings taking place around the world, most recently seen in London and Egypt? What is happening?
What I think we see is a division in views that is taking place. I think we have on the one hand groups like the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas and Hizb Allah who are trying to build a Muslim society, and to get a stake in society and in power, by working through the electoral process, by trying to work or to try to contrive the reforms that will allow them, if you like, from the bottom up, popular Islamism.
You see that very clearly taking place in Egypt, where there is a process of drawing on a popular desire to see elections, changes and reforms - and trying to mobilise that popular support in order to get a stake in power, whereby they can bring about the changes that conform with what their constituencies are looking to.
On the other hand, I think there is a different trend which sees the project of decolonisation after the last European war having been incomplete and having failed, and amongst some of this trend, you get the sense that you have to break the system in order to make the system. You've actually got to bring down the structures in order to start again.
That accommodation ultimately will fail because the West won't allow groups like Hamas, Hizb Allah and others to participate fully in the electoral process. So they are looking to another way of doing that, in which they are challenging, if you like, completing the process of decolonisation. They believe you have to pull the structure down and start again.
I think this dichotomy was elegantly described by Muqtada al-Sadr [a Shia Muslim cleric in Iraq] in a recent interview, in which he said, 'Look, there are some of my brothers who believe that by working with the provisional government, they can work to bring about an end to the occupation of Iraq. Well, I wish them luck with that, but I believe ultimately they will fail because the United States will not allow it. That is why I believe that first by resistance we must bring about the end of occupation, and only then will it be possible to create a state, a Muslim state, in Iraq'.
And I think that is something of the dilemma we are facing, that I think what we saw in Egypt is [both trends] taking place at the same time. On the one hand, you have the Muslim Brotherhood and the other groups working politically, challenging for power through the electoral process, and we see the bombs that took place in Sharm al-Shaikh - we don't yet know the full motivation - which may represent the other trend, which says, you've got to collapse the system before you can really rebuild a fair and just society.
You make a distinction between the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas and Hizb Allah, and al-Qaida or al-Qaida related-groups, that are more global in their actions?
I think there is a big difference between the two, in that what you have is Hamas, Hizb Allah, Jammat Islamiya, Muslim Brotherhood and these groups.
They may be seen on the one hand through the optic of using resistance or violence, in support of their objectives, but these groups all favour elections, they look for reform, they're looking for constitutional change in their society, and that is an important difference between these groups and some of the other Salafi, Takfiri, extreme radical groups who are looking for polarisation.
So what does al-Qaida want?
Well, I'm afraid I'm one of those people in the West that thinks this title, al-Qaida, has become so overused and used so widely, that I mean that's it's impossible any longer to say.
I don't think there is that organisational structure that is so often presented in the West, but I think it is quite clear the main objective is the removal of Western armies from Muslim lands and an ability to create a just society in Muslim lands. But their methodology is very different.
This is to oversimplify it, but it has some objectives which were evident in 1998 [the year Osama bin Laden declared a fatwa calling on his followers to kill American nationals and allies of the US, and the year of the East Africa embassy bombings] which was about polarisation and radicalisation and a short circuiting of the route to an Islamic society by an act of "shock and awe" that would radicalise the ummah [global Muslim community] and bring about an instant change.
But for many Muslims and many groups - including the Islamists - they would say it has alienated much of the ummah by the type and nature of the violence that has been used to radicalise the situation. And also some would say that it has made the conditions for Muslims worse off because of "the war on terror".
And certainly, some groups might point to the situation of the Palestinians as an example and say it has greatly deteriorated. So what have these acts achieved?
Do you think America is waging the ''war on terror'' in an effective manner?
You have to go back and say, what is a war? "Terror" -whatever that means - I don't use that word because I don't think it's necessarily helpful to understanding what we're dealing with.
And certainly, if we are, it's why I prefer to use such words as political insurgency - an incipient political insurgency - because an insurgency is basically about psychology and politics and that's what we have been trying to understand, and that's what we have to deal with.
But I think there are two things that are very important to understand. One is that in dealing with the situation we have now, the first thing is the West often muddles together things that are so completely different. They group Hamas and Hizb Allah and put them in the same box and say all of this is "Islamist terrorism".
They couldn't be more poles apart. Just [recently] for example, I heard that there is an assassination list put out by some of these radical groups which contain Hizb Allah names on it, proposing that they should be assassinated.
There is a world of difference between bunching them together - the struggle and the difference between [these] groups.
The other thing that is important to understand is we often talk about anger and hostility, but there is also a feeling in the West that it is just anger and hostility to the West and that, if only things settle down in Iraq and if Muslims are more educated and get a little bit more money, it will all go away and vanish and things will become stable again.
I think that is to miss the point.
There is anger, and there is this hostility, but there is also beneath that a substantive critique of Western policies, of Western economic structures of our financial system, of our trade policy, of our development policy, of our foreign policies and also an alternative view of how a society should be. In other words, the challenge that they are not necessarily universal values.
So I think we should just not regard this as a froth of anger that will be dissipated, if only a little more money and investment is poured into the [affected places].
I think the anger may diminish, but there beneath this, a substantive and real critique needs to be addressed by the West and not denied by them.
US President George Bush says that extremist groups like al-Qaida hate the democracy and values the West represents. Is this a correct view and understanding of what motivates such groups?
This is completely wrong. Muslims everywhere - and the polls underline this very clearly - reflect the same values: They do not hate our values, but they do hate our policies.
The problem is with our policies and politics.
Polls show very clearly that Muslims support elections, they want popular participation in government. They want effective and good governance and they want reform. And these are the same values as European and American societies.
There is no difference on values.
Muslim values expressed in the polls represent no threat to our societies.
Perhaps they will look for a society that is underpinned with ethical values not only in a personal sphere but in an institutional sphere, and in a sphere of governance in order to avoid what they see as some of the weaknesses of a secular liberal democracy, but that is not a challenge, or an existential threat to our societies.
Why do you believe it is important to talk to groups that use such tactics as suicide bombings?
I don't want to imply that that is a condoning of these tactics, but what we are looking at is we are talking to those groups that have sometimes used political violence, but these are groups that should also be seen, on the other hand, [as groups] who do support elections, who do support positive reform and change, and who reflect significant Muslim constituencies.
They have a real legitimacy. They clearly have many people who support their activities and vote for them and express their support.
So they do have a real legitimacy, which the West must not sweep under the carpet and pretend it's not there.
With the other groups [such as al-Qaida], there is no indication of whether they have a clear legitimacy. Maybe some arguments that they make have some resonance, perhaps or not within the whole of Muslim societies, but some sectors of it.
There's no formal way of judging the degree to which there is legitimacy for their views, as opposed to some ephemeral resonance that some arguments have within Muslim society, so there is a big difference, I believe.
The other difference is, if they're looking for polarisation and radicalisation, then I'll doubt if they want to talk to anyone.
Should governments not take the principled stand that they should not negotiate with those who use such indiscriminate carnage?
We need to find the most effective way to break a cycle of violence and we need to address it in a number of ways.
One of the clear things I'm saying is that once you look and understand that this is also about politics, it means we have to have a political approach, as well as a need to protect our societies too.
Every society has to protect its citizens, that is the duty of a government.
But it is also important to look at it more widely and to understand possibly that by labelling and lumping together groups like Hamas and Hizb Allah and others that clearly are wanting to participate ... to try to deny them political space, to isolate and demonize them and disempower their discourse is the wrong way to go about it.
You have moderates and young people - even people here in the camps in Lebanon - who would say to their political leaders, "Look, see where your moderation has got you? See what you've succeeded in? Your still labelled a terrorist, you are still hunted down and killed and it has achieved for you nothing."
If that continues, it would be not surprising if people - young people - will say there's no point [in positive participation].
Maybe the radical groups have got the right idea in this, if you like.
It's a challenge between those who believe you can work through the system to bring change and those who believe you've got to break it and start from the beginning.
Is there a democratic transformation, or an "Arab spring" under way in the Middle East - in Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine - and is this because of the policies of George Bush?
Well firstly, I'm not sure that's what we have got.
I mean, we may have had some events taking place, but elections in Palestine have not taken place. Parliamentary elections we have yet to see... taking place, even the completion of the municipal election.
I was in Paris recently, and I read that Hamas should be excluded from participating in the elections. I think that was a call from Silvan Shalom, the Israeli foreign minister. So, in short, it's fine to have elections as long as you vote only for Fatah [the ruling Palestinian party of President Mahmoud Abbas] effectively is the message.
The question about Iraq is a difficult one. What has the invasion achieved so far?
In Lebanon, the turnout, although people were excited and enthusiastic about the elections, the turnout was very low in areas because people felt disenfranchised and they didn't feel that the elections - although these are changed circumstances from what had existed in previous elections - were not necessarily offering a real choice.
You're presently in Lebanon. What lessons can today's Iraq learn from Lebanon's history?
Lebanon has shown the possibility for internal accommodation and for pluralism. And I think it is to the credit of parties, and I say even those parties that are classified or regarded like Hizb Allah, as "terrorist".
Hizb Allah has played a very important role here in these recent months in trying to ensure stability in the region and to help the process towards a pluralistic outcome.
So you will find that even the groups that are quite often criticised in the West have played a positive role in helping towards creating stability and a political process. It is a credit to not only Hizb Allah, but to the other groups as well in the positive changes they are achieving.
I know it's still very tense and there are many challenges ahead, but to that extent, it's been very positive.
Would you say that a slide into civil war in Iraq is preventable?
I don't know. I'm sitting here in Lebanon. And I think to know those things you have to be on the ground [in Iraq], so it's difficult to say.
http://tinyurl.com/7rj4p
By Humayun Chaudhry
Monday 08 August 2005, 17:32 Makka Time, 14:32 GMT
Alastair Crooke is a former official with Britain's MI6 intelligence agency who has worked in some of the world's most dangerous hotspots.
He spent many years in the Arab and Muslim world and engaged in dialogue with Hamas and Hizb Allah, as well as facing paramilitary forces and drug cartels in Latin America and militias in Africa.
His last posting, based in Jerusalem, was as a senior adviser to the EU high representative on foreign affairs, Javier Solana.
During this time, Crooke helped end the Israeli siege of the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem in 2002 and worked to mediate the summer 2003 ceasefire between Palestinian armed groups and Israeli forces.
Now retired and leading his own non-profit organisation, Conflicts Forum, Crooke hopes to foster a broader dialogue between the Muslim world and the West.
Aljazeera.net spoke to him on the phone while he was in Lebanon recently.
We asked him about the London and Sharm al-Shaikh bombings, the war on terror and dialogue with Islamist groups.
Do you believe the London attacks are a consequence of Britain's participation in the war on Iraq?
I believe there is no causal motivation that has been established yet for what happened in London, on the two occasions, so I think it's difficult to say what is the causal trigger to these two events.
But I think it's very clear that there has been a great deal of anger and hostility that has risen from Muslims everywhere, from not only events in Iraq - that is an important element - but much more widely, in Afghanistan, but also the Palestinian issue and others, that has radicalised many young Muslims, not only in the UK but everywhere.
Would it be fair to say that Britain's role in Iraq increased the terror threat to the UK?
I think what one can say is, the role of Iraq - the events in Iraq - the way they have turned out, has increased the radicalisation of particularly young Muslims and here in the region [the Middle East].
It's very clear not only in Britain but even here in Lebanon in the camps [about 400,000 Palestinian refugees live in camps in Lebanon], people are angry and concerned about what they see happening in Afghanistan and Iraq, and even the policy towards Iran.
How do you explain the apparent increase in bombings taking place around the world, most recently seen in London and Egypt? What is happening?
What I think we see is a division in views that is taking place. I think we have on the one hand groups like the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas and Hizb Allah who are trying to build a Muslim society, and to get a stake in society and in power, by working through the electoral process, by trying to work or to try to contrive the reforms that will allow them, if you like, from the bottom up, popular Islamism.
You see that very clearly taking place in Egypt, where there is a process of drawing on a popular desire to see elections, changes and reforms - and trying to mobilise that popular support in order to get a stake in power, whereby they can bring about the changes that conform with what their constituencies are looking to.
On the other hand, I think there is a different trend which sees the project of decolonisation after the last European war having been incomplete and having failed, and amongst some of this trend, you get the sense that you have to break the system in order to make the system. You've actually got to bring down the structures in order to start again.
That accommodation ultimately will fail because the West won't allow groups like Hamas, Hizb Allah and others to participate fully in the electoral process. So they are looking to another way of doing that, in which they are challenging, if you like, completing the process of decolonisation. They believe you have to pull the structure down and start again.
I think this dichotomy was elegantly described by Muqtada al-Sadr [a Shia Muslim cleric in Iraq] in a recent interview, in which he said, 'Look, there are some of my brothers who believe that by working with the provisional government, they can work to bring about an end to the occupation of Iraq. Well, I wish them luck with that, but I believe ultimately they will fail because the United States will not allow it. That is why I believe that first by resistance we must bring about the end of occupation, and only then will it be possible to create a state, a Muslim state, in Iraq'.
And I think that is something of the dilemma we are facing, that I think what we saw in Egypt is [both trends] taking place at the same time. On the one hand, you have the Muslim Brotherhood and the other groups working politically, challenging for power through the electoral process, and we see the bombs that took place in Sharm al-Shaikh - we don't yet know the full motivation - which may represent the other trend, which says, you've got to collapse the system before you can really rebuild a fair and just society.
You make a distinction between the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas and Hizb Allah, and al-Qaida or al-Qaida related-groups, that are more global in their actions?
I think there is a big difference between the two, in that what you have is Hamas, Hizb Allah, Jammat Islamiya, Muslim Brotherhood and these groups.
They may be seen on the one hand through the optic of using resistance or violence, in support of their objectives, but these groups all favour elections, they look for reform, they're looking for constitutional change in their society, and that is an important difference between these groups and some of the other Salafi, Takfiri, extreme radical groups who are looking for polarisation.
So what does al-Qaida want?
Well, I'm afraid I'm one of those people in the West that thinks this title, al-Qaida, has become so overused and used so widely, that I mean that's it's impossible any longer to say.
I don't think there is that organisational structure that is so often presented in the West, but I think it is quite clear the main objective is the removal of Western armies from Muslim lands and an ability to create a just society in Muslim lands. But their methodology is very different.
This is to oversimplify it, but it has some objectives which were evident in 1998 [the year Osama bin Laden declared a fatwa calling on his followers to kill American nationals and allies of the US, and the year of the East Africa embassy bombings] which was about polarisation and radicalisation and a short circuiting of the route to an Islamic society by an act of "shock and awe" that would radicalise the ummah [global Muslim community] and bring about an instant change.
But for many Muslims and many groups - including the Islamists - they would say it has alienated much of the ummah by the type and nature of the violence that has been used to radicalise the situation. And also some would say that it has made the conditions for Muslims worse off because of "the war on terror".
And certainly, some groups might point to the situation of the Palestinians as an example and say it has greatly deteriorated. So what have these acts achieved?
Do you think America is waging the ''war on terror'' in an effective manner?
You have to go back and say, what is a war? "Terror" -whatever that means - I don't use that word because I don't think it's necessarily helpful to understanding what we're dealing with.
And certainly, if we are, it's why I prefer to use such words as political insurgency - an incipient political insurgency - because an insurgency is basically about psychology and politics and that's what we have been trying to understand, and that's what we have to deal with.
But I think there are two things that are very important to understand. One is that in dealing with the situation we have now, the first thing is the West often muddles together things that are so completely different. They group Hamas and Hizb Allah and put them in the same box and say all of this is "Islamist terrorism".
They couldn't be more poles apart. Just [recently] for example, I heard that there is an assassination list put out by some of these radical groups which contain Hizb Allah names on it, proposing that they should be assassinated.
There is a world of difference between bunching them together - the struggle and the difference between [these] groups.
The other thing that is important to understand is we often talk about anger and hostility, but there is also a feeling in the West that it is just anger and hostility to the West and that, if only things settle down in Iraq and if Muslims are more educated and get a little bit more money, it will all go away and vanish and things will become stable again.
I think that is to miss the point.
There is anger, and there is this hostility, but there is also beneath that a substantive critique of Western policies, of Western economic structures of our financial system, of our trade policy, of our development policy, of our foreign policies and also an alternative view of how a society should be. In other words, the challenge that they are not necessarily universal values.
So I think we should just not regard this as a froth of anger that will be dissipated, if only a little more money and investment is poured into the [affected places].
I think the anger may diminish, but there beneath this, a substantive and real critique needs to be addressed by the West and not denied by them.
US President George Bush says that extremist groups like al-Qaida hate the democracy and values the West represents. Is this a correct view and understanding of what motivates such groups?
This is completely wrong. Muslims everywhere - and the polls underline this very clearly - reflect the same values: They do not hate our values, but they do hate our policies.
The problem is with our policies and politics.
Polls show very clearly that Muslims support elections, they want popular participation in government. They want effective and good governance and they want reform. And these are the same values as European and American societies.
There is no difference on values.
Muslim values expressed in the polls represent no threat to our societies.
Perhaps they will look for a society that is underpinned with ethical values not only in a personal sphere but in an institutional sphere, and in a sphere of governance in order to avoid what they see as some of the weaknesses of a secular liberal democracy, but that is not a challenge, or an existential threat to our societies.
Why do you believe it is important to talk to groups that use such tactics as suicide bombings?
I don't want to imply that that is a condoning of these tactics, but what we are looking at is we are talking to those groups that have sometimes used political violence, but these are groups that should also be seen, on the other hand, [as groups] who do support elections, who do support positive reform and change, and who reflect significant Muslim constituencies.
They have a real legitimacy. They clearly have many people who support their activities and vote for them and express their support.
So they do have a real legitimacy, which the West must not sweep under the carpet and pretend it's not there.
With the other groups [such as al-Qaida], there is no indication of whether they have a clear legitimacy. Maybe some arguments that they make have some resonance, perhaps or not within the whole of Muslim societies, but some sectors of it.
There's no formal way of judging the degree to which there is legitimacy for their views, as opposed to some ephemeral resonance that some arguments have within Muslim society, so there is a big difference, I believe.
The other difference is, if they're looking for polarisation and radicalisation, then I'll doubt if they want to talk to anyone.
Should governments not take the principled stand that they should not negotiate with those who use such indiscriminate carnage?
We need to find the most effective way to break a cycle of violence and we need to address it in a number of ways.
One of the clear things I'm saying is that once you look and understand that this is also about politics, it means we have to have a political approach, as well as a need to protect our societies too.
Every society has to protect its citizens, that is the duty of a government.
But it is also important to look at it more widely and to understand possibly that by labelling and lumping together groups like Hamas and Hizb Allah and others that clearly are wanting to participate ... to try to deny them political space, to isolate and demonize them and disempower their discourse is the wrong way to go about it.
You have moderates and young people - even people here in the camps in Lebanon - who would say to their political leaders, "Look, see where your moderation has got you? See what you've succeeded in? Your still labelled a terrorist, you are still hunted down and killed and it has achieved for you nothing."
If that continues, it would be not surprising if people - young people - will say there's no point [in positive participation].
Maybe the radical groups have got the right idea in this, if you like.
It's a challenge between those who believe you can work through the system to bring change and those who believe you've got to break it and start from the beginning.
Is there a democratic transformation, or an "Arab spring" under way in the Middle East - in Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine - and is this because of the policies of George Bush?
Well firstly, I'm not sure that's what we have got.
I mean, we may have had some events taking place, but elections in Palestine have not taken place. Parliamentary elections we have yet to see... taking place, even the completion of the municipal election.
I was in Paris recently, and I read that Hamas should be excluded from participating in the elections. I think that was a call from Silvan Shalom, the Israeli foreign minister. So, in short, it's fine to have elections as long as you vote only for Fatah [the ruling Palestinian party of President Mahmoud Abbas] effectively is the message.
The question about Iraq is a difficult one. What has the invasion achieved so far?
In Lebanon, the turnout, although people were excited and enthusiastic about the elections, the turnout was very low in areas because people felt disenfranchised and they didn't feel that the elections - although these are changed circumstances from what had existed in previous elections - were not necessarily offering a real choice.
You're presently in Lebanon. What lessons can today's Iraq learn from Lebanon's history?
Lebanon has shown the possibility for internal accommodation and for pluralism. And I think it is to the credit of parties, and I say even those parties that are classified or regarded like Hizb Allah, as "terrorist".
Hizb Allah has played a very important role here in these recent months in trying to ensure stability in the region and to help the process towards a pluralistic outcome.
So you will find that even the groups that are quite often criticised in the West have played a positive role in helping towards creating stability and a political process. It is a credit to not only Hizb Allah, but to the other groups as well in the positive changes they are achieving.
I know it's still very tense and there are many challenges ahead, but to that extent, it's been very positive.
Would you say that a slide into civil war in Iraq is preventable?
I don't know. I'm sitting here in Lebanon. And I think to know those things you have to be on the ground [in Iraq], so it's difficult to say.
http://tinyurl.com/7rj4p
Thursday, August 11, 2005
Poem 18
Shaking sand from the shoes of my sister
I watch the lamp-wrapping fogs
And lingering on the stoop, I persist, or,
Better, you persist in naming my nieces
According to the periodic table,
Slinging their names into the mist
Until Helium rings against
Jenny's undone laces and catches hold.
I've an aversion to the way you walk.
It's as though your mother bound your feet.
The fogs slink around your ankles
Healing all the harm of family.
I watch the lamp-wrapping fogs
And lingering on the stoop, I persist, or,
Better, you persist in naming my nieces
According to the periodic table,
Slinging their names into the mist
Until Helium rings against
Jenny's undone laces and catches hold.
I've an aversion to the way you walk.
It's as though your mother bound your feet.
The fogs slink around your ankles
Healing all the harm of family.
Tuesday, August 09, 2005
Poem 17
Rearranging vowels in the mouth of a Finn
How he marks his turf
Telling time, he unwinds a consonant
How he finds the fart
Premises:
Old = Primitive
Neurotic = Taboo
Suppressed = Present
How he marks his turf
Telling time, he unwinds a consonant
How he finds the fart
Premises:
Old = Primitive
Neurotic = Taboo
Suppressed = Present
Poem 16
Standing in the tobacco field, the damp flap of wings overhead.
Biting off each word, rearranging them into new phrases.
We made them of leather, the bindings, and we painted them with gold.
Pale sunless skies of summer
The telephone excitable
The three women finding humor
In the office crucible
Where the onion has been its essence lingers.
Biting off each word, rearranging them into new phrases.
We made them of leather, the bindings, and we painted them with gold.
Pale sunless skies of summer
The telephone excitable
The three women finding humor
In the office crucible
Where the onion has been its essence lingers.
Monday, August 08, 2005
Sunday, August 07, 2005
A stranger replies
What do you regard as the lowest depth of misery?
Finding myself lost in a Central American jungle after having been
brutally dumped and then having a boa constrictor drop out of a tree and onto my back. While I'm being swallowed alive, the last thing I hear is a skil saw cutting through sheet metal.
Or, and this is based on a dream I recently had, dating Gary Coleman and trying very hard to feel like I'm in love with him while we're sitting on a couch with my parents.
Where would you like to live?
Where the sheets smell of pumpkin and the shelves are lined with fresh hay. Or Mongolia. Or maybe Copenhagen. Or Iowa City, Iowa. Or how about in a teeny-tiny invisible capsule that I could fly around in, spying on people all over the world -- that would be cool, wouldn't it?
What is your idea of earthly happiness?
True and unconditional love. Free beer. Swimming in lakes and rivers at night. A warm bed.
To what faults do you feel most indulgent?
This one is hard to answer, as once I feel indulgent, those things no longer seem like faults.
Who are your favorite heroes of fiction?
There's a character in a George Saunders short story entitled "The
Falls." His name is Morse. And bear with me, but here is the initial
description of him:
"Morse was tall and thin and gray and sepulchral as a church about to be condemned. His pants were too short, and his face periodically broke into a tense, involuntary grin that quickly receded, as if he had just suffered a sharp pain. At work he was known to punctuate his conversations with brief wild laughs and gusts of inchoate enthusiasm and subsequent embarrassment, expressed by a sudden plunging of the hands into his pockets, after which he would yank his hands out of his pockets, too ashamed of his own shame to stand there merely grimacing for even an instant longer."
So this guy is unsure of himself and indecisive. But by the end of the story he makes this incredibly heroic, doomed decision. So him.
Also Humbert Humbert & Hazel Motes.
Who are your favorite characters in history?
A.A. Milne, Christopher Milne, Saul, MLK, the poor guy who accidentally cut down the oldest ironwood tree in North America, Cabeza de Vaca.
Who are your favorite heroines in real life?
Freddy Mercury, Martha Stewart, Valerie Solanas, Lydia Davis.
Who are your favorite heroines of fiction?
Mrs. Dalloway, Julie Hecht's narrator in _Do The Windows Open_ (who strongly favors the author, I understand), Judith Fellowes, Martha (_Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?_).
Your favorite painter?
Chuck Close.
Your favorite musician?
Will Oldham.
The quality you most admire in a man?
Fecklessness & talent. I like men who say really smart things but who aren't aware that they're smart. Gentleness. Bravery. Modesty.
The quality you most admire in a woman?
Wit, interests & skills beyond what might be considered "feminine"
stuff. Open-mindedness. Likes to kick it with the ladies just as much as with the mens. Modesty. Loyalty.
Your favorite virtue?
Compassion. And the ability to swear a lot without offending anyone.
Your favorite occupation?
Reading, writing, eating meals, watching a really good movie & then
talking about it afterwards, listening to music.
Who would you have liked to be?
Me, only incredibly wealthy and able to boss everyone around.
Finding myself lost in a Central American jungle after having been
brutally dumped and then having a boa constrictor drop out of a tree and onto my back. While I'm being swallowed alive, the last thing I hear is a skil saw cutting through sheet metal.
Or, and this is based on a dream I recently had, dating Gary Coleman and trying very hard to feel like I'm in love with him while we're sitting on a couch with my parents.
Where would you like to live?
Where the sheets smell of pumpkin and the shelves are lined with fresh hay. Or Mongolia. Or maybe Copenhagen. Or Iowa City, Iowa. Or how about in a teeny-tiny invisible capsule that I could fly around in, spying on people all over the world -- that would be cool, wouldn't it?
What is your idea of earthly happiness?
True and unconditional love. Free beer. Swimming in lakes and rivers at night. A warm bed.
To what faults do you feel most indulgent?
This one is hard to answer, as once I feel indulgent, those things no longer seem like faults.
Who are your favorite heroes of fiction?
There's a character in a George Saunders short story entitled "The
Falls." His name is Morse. And bear with me, but here is the initial
description of him:
"Morse was tall and thin and gray and sepulchral as a church about to be condemned. His pants were too short, and his face periodically broke into a tense, involuntary grin that quickly receded, as if he had just suffered a sharp pain. At work he was known to punctuate his conversations with brief wild laughs and gusts of inchoate enthusiasm and subsequent embarrassment, expressed by a sudden plunging of the hands into his pockets, after which he would yank his hands out of his pockets, too ashamed of his own shame to stand there merely grimacing for even an instant longer."
So this guy is unsure of himself and indecisive. But by the end of the story he makes this incredibly heroic, doomed decision. So him.
Also Humbert Humbert & Hazel Motes.
Who are your favorite characters in history?
A.A. Milne, Christopher Milne, Saul, MLK, the poor guy who accidentally cut down the oldest ironwood tree in North America, Cabeza de Vaca.
Who are your favorite heroines in real life?
Freddy Mercury, Martha Stewart, Valerie Solanas, Lydia Davis.
Who are your favorite heroines of fiction?
Mrs. Dalloway, Julie Hecht's narrator in _Do The Windows Open_ (who strongly favors the author, I understand), Judith Fellowes, Martha (_Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?_).
Your favorite painter?
Chuck Close.
Your favorite musician?
Will Oldham.
The quality you most admire in a man?
Fecklessness & talent. I like men who say really smart things but who aren't aware that they're smart. Gentleness. Bravery. Modesty.
The quality you most admire in a woman?
Wit, interests & skills beyond what might be considered "feminine"
stuff. Open-mindedness. Likes to kick it with the ladies just as much as with the mens. Modesty. Loyalty.
Your favorite virtue?
Compassion. And the ability to swear a lot without offending anyone.
Your favorite occupation?
Reading, writing, eating meals, watching a really good movie & then
talking about it afterwards, listening to music.
Who would you have liked to be?
Me, only incredibly wealthy and able to boss everyone around.
Saturday, August 06, 2005
A friend replies, number 11
What do you regard as the lowest depth of misery?
Knowing on Saturday eve I am supposed to leave for the army the next morning. I still dream about that sometimes and wake up choked. Worse than that, losing my beloved ones frightens me to the degree of inconceivability.
Where would you like to live?
As far as possible from anything related to an army.
What is your idea of earthly happiness?
Sleep 6 hours in a night, and be able to read a good novel without being interrupted in the middle. Then playing with [my son] Asaf on the beach. Won't resist slow passionate sex, an interesting CD, and a good movie either.
To what faults do you feel most indulgent?
All of the above (ideas of earthly happiness).
Who are your favorite heroes of fiction?
Hmmm. So many. A few I can think of right now are: Ferinand Bardamu (Celine, "A Journey to the End of the Night," 1932); Hanno (Thomas Mann, "Buddenbrooks," 1901); John Marcher (Henry James, "The Beast in the Jungle," 1903), the narrator of "Wittgenstein's Nephew" (Thomas Bernhard, 1982), the narrator of Georges Perec's "W or the Memory of a Whildhood " (1975).
Who are your favorite characters in history?
The European Jewish intellectuals: Benjamin, Kafka, Celan, Primo Levi, Ernst Cassirer, even Leon Blum.
Who are your favorite heroines in real life?
Helene Grimaud, Martha Argerich, Adrienne Rich. Women who have second thoughts about men.
Who are your favorite heroines of fiction?
Gina (David Fogel, "In Front of the Ocean," 1932); Briony (Ian McEwan, "Atonment," 2000); all Viriginia Woolf's horoines; Proust's female heroines.
Your favorite painter?
This week it would be Paul Klee again, thanks to a small sketch of an emptry room from 1917.
Your favorite musician?
Hmmm. Today it would be a mixture of Murcof (an electronic music artist) and Schumann (thanks to the beautifull "Pletnev Plays Schumann"). Tomorrow it'll be others.
The quality you most admire in a man?
Intellectual honesty.
The quality you most admire in a woman?
Same, plus.
Your favorite virtue?
Kindness.
Your favorite occupation?
Pausing. (While holding an interesting book in one hand, a good cake in the other, a cup of strong coffee on the table, and Dietrich Fischer Diskau singing in the background.)
Who would you have liked to be?
An author, a painter, an experimental musician, a traveler, a wondering Jew.
Knowing on Saturday eve I am supposed to leave for the army the next morning. I still dream about that sometimes and wake up choked. Worse than that, losing my beloved ones frightens me to the degree of inconceivability.
Where would you like to live?
As far as possible from anything related to an army.
What is your idea of earthly happiness?
Sleep 6 hours in a night, and be able to read a good novel without being interrupted in the middle. Then playing with [my son] Asaf on the beach. Won't resist slow passionate sex, an interesting CD, and a good movie either.
To what faults do you feel most indulgent?
All of the above (ideas of earthly happiness).
Who are your favorite heroes of fiction?
Hmmm. So many. A few I can think of right now are: Ferinand Bardamu (Celine, "A Journey to the End of the Night," 1932); Hanno (Thomas Mann, "Buddenbrooks," 1901); John Marcher (Henry James, "The Beast in the Jungle," 1903), the narrator of "Wittgenstein's Nephew" (Thomas Bernhard, 1982), the narrator of Georges Perec's "W or the Memory of a Whildhood " (1975).
Who are your favorite characters in history?
The European Jewish intellectuals: Benjamin, Kafka, Celan, Primo Levi, Ernst Cassirer, even Leon Blum.
Who are your favorite heroines in real life?
Helene Grimaud, Martha Argerich, Adrienne Rich. Women who have second thoughts about men.
Who are your favorite heroines of fiction?
Gina (David Fogel, "In Front of the Ocean," 1932); Briony (Ian McEwan, "Atonment," 2000); all Viriginia Woolf's horoines; Proust's female heroines.
Your favorite painter?
This week it would be Paul Klee again, thanks to a small sketch of an emptry room from 1917.
Your favorite musician?
Hmmm. Today it would be a mixture of Murcof (an electronic music artist) and Schumann (thanks to the beautifull "Pletnev Plays Schumann"). Tomorrow it'll be others.
The quality you most admire in a man?
Intellectual honesty.
The quality you most admire in a woman?
Same, plus.
Your favorite virtue?
Kindness.
Your favorite occupation?
Pausing. (While holding an interesting book in one hand, a good cake in the other, a cup of strong coffee on the table, and Dietrich Fischer Diskau singing in the background.)
Who would you have liked to be?
An author, a painter, an experimental musician, a traveler, a wondering Jew.
Thursday, August 04, 2005
Wednesday, August 03, 2005
Gus Van Sant, "Last Days"
It's less that, as my friend David said, Van Sant has abandoned "bourgeois framing" than that he's returned to the wandering, loping style he used to great effect in "Mala Noche" and "My Own Private Idaho." A number of directors are challenging their viewers with super long shots, held almost beyond endurance, these days. Tsai Ming-liang in "Goodbye, Dragon Inn"; Abbas Kiarostami in "Five Dedicated to Ozu"; now Van Sant. It's as though we're witnessing a haunting by the ghost of Antonioni (he's not dead, but he might as well be).
From the very beginning of "Last Days," which was filmed in the woods of New York state, the loping, aimless, muttering figure at the center of the story is adrift, and I worried that the big stone house he prowls and flees and hunts through would drag him to the bottom of his merciless sea.
What is his face to us? A beautiful blank, less expressive of his existential exhaustion than his costume shape-shifting. The music he makes as we watch through a window tells the tale far better than any line he ever speaks or could speak.
From the very beginning of "Last Days," which was filmed in the woods of New York state, the loping, aimless, muttering figure at the center of the story is adrift, and I worried that the big stone house he prowls and flees and hunts through would drag him to the bottom of his merciless sea.
What is his face to us? A beautiful blank, less expressive of his existential exhaustion than his costume shape-shifting. The music he makes as we watch through a window tells the tale far better than any line he ever speaks or could speak.
Tuesday, August 02, 2005
Rumsfeld's solution to extremism
In an essay published in yesterday's Financial Times, Donald Rumsfeld, whom we might begin to distrust after two grossly wrongheaded endorsements in bad intelligence gathering (Team B in the 1970s and assessments of Iraq's weaponry more recently), declared it "essential that we take care in understanding what motivates -- and does not motivate -- extremists to commit mass murder." I certainly think this statement unassailable. But Rumsfeld does not make any attempt to understand what motivates terrorists in his essay. Instead he simply assails the "empty justifications" that terrorists give for their actions.
We need better than this.
The essay, entitled "There can be no moderate solutions to extremism," amounts to an apology for the use of violence to counter violence and offers reassuring statements such as "[The extremists] failed on September 11. They are failing in Iraq and Afghanistan." By what measure does the secretary of defense assess failure?
We need better than this.
The essay, entitled "There can be no moderate solutions to extremism," amounts to an apology for the use of violence to counter violence and offers reassuring statements such as "[The extremists] failed on September 11. They are failing in Iraq and Afghanistan." By what measure does the secretary of defense assess failure?
A friend replies, number 10
What do you regard as the lowest depth of misery?
untimely death of people one cares about
Where would you like to live?
near water with a useful city in hailing distance
What is your idea of earthly happiness?
creating fulltime with my family nearby
To what faults do you feel most indulgent?
ice cream
Who are your favorite heroes of fiction?
monkey wrench gang
Who are your favorite characters in history?
odysseus
Who are your favorite heroines in real life?
singers
Who are your favorite heroines of fiction?
aglaya (from the brothers karamazov)
Your favorite painter?
seurat?
Your favorite musician?
david byrne/elvis costello
The quality you most admire in a man?
telling truth to power without violence
The quality you most admire in a woman?
telling truth to power without violence
Your favorite virtue?
compassion
Your favorite occupation?
naturalist
Who would you have liked to be?
Tom Paine
untimely death of people one cares about
Where would you like to live?
near water with a useful city in hailing distance
What is your idea of earthly happiness?
creating fulltime with my family nearby
To what faults do you feel most indulgent?
ice cream
Who are your favorite heroes of fiction?
monkey wrench gang
Who are your favorite characters in history?
odysseus
Who are your favorite heroines in real life?
singers
Who are your favorite heroines of fiction?
aglaya (from the brothers karamazov)
Your favorite painter?
seurat?
Your favorite musician?
david byrne/elvis costello
The quality you most admire in a man?
telling truth to power without violence
The quality you most admire in a woman?
telling truth to power without violence
Your favorite virtue?
compassion
Your favorite occupation?
naturalist
Who would you have liked to be?
Tom Paine
Monday, August 01, 2005
A change in American policy
The Financial Times ran a story in today's edition describing an important change in the Bush administration's approach to international Islamist terrorism. Instead of the military strategy that has done nothing but increase the number of terrorist attacks around the world, the goal will be to "develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to discredit and demystify extremists' ideology and promote moderate Islamic voices."
This should have been the first step taken by any American leader aware of the international support for anti-American terrorism that has been growing for over a decade. The bombs, assassinations, destruction of civil infrastructure and immoderate rhetoric that have been official American policy since the attacks of September 11 legitimize terrorist violence. The continuing American support for the international arms trade and the failure to set an example in the area of nuclear weapons disarmament deliver the same message.
As long as we practice torture and kill innocents in the pursuit of those who declare themselves our enemies, we foster a culture of violent retribution and racist disregard for the suffering of Afghanis, Iraqis and others who do not look like white America.
I will write a letter to President Bush today, praising him for adopting this new polocy of outreach to the Muslim world.
This should have been the first step taken by any American leader aware of the international support for anti-American terrorism that has been growing for over a decade. The bombs, assassinations, destruction of civil infrastructure and immoderate rhetoric that have been official American policy since the attacks of September 11 legitimize terrorist violence. The continuing American support for the international arms trade and the failure to set an example in the area of nuclear weapons disarmament deliver the same message.
As long as we practice torture and kill innocents in the pursuit of those who declare themselves our enemies, we foster a culture of violent retribution and racist disregard for the suffering of Afghanis, Iraqis and others who do not look like white America.
I will write a letter to President Bush today, praising him for adopting this new polocy of outreach to the Muslim world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)