e.e. cummings in the news again, this time from the fine folks at Awl magazine.
Lexi Mainland (real name? guessing not, tentatively) is the chief micro-blogger for the Times. She refers concerned photo-takers to this page, which displays some alternatives to those TwitPic bastards. (Ironic: yes, Mr. Keller, this is aggregating. Odd that that sounds so similar to aggravating.)
The dinosaurs at Time hope to God (who is obviously Henry Luce) that you collegiate fools did not choose to major in an archaic field known as journalism, a word whose root denotes a daily record-keeping. Nowadays people keep tabs every minute: minutalism?
As a blogger, it behooves me to ask whether informing the world about anything involving your experience waiting for a plane or what you ate for lunch is useful at all. As a micro-blogger, saying so is predicated on the real possibility of being de-followed, or whatever the hell that is supposed to be termed.
Friday, April 29, 2011
“The modern Arab Republic of Egypt identifies itself as an Arab nation, though its people are ‘Arabized’ rather than true Arabs. The distinction between Arab and Egyptian is well recognized among Egyptians and Arabs alike. Egypt perceives its role in the development of the Middle East as one of leadership [sic], peacemaker, and negotiator.”
— Susan L. Wilson, Culture Shock! Egypt: A Guide to Customs and Etiquette (Portland, 1998: Graphic Arts Center Publishing Co.), p. 10
— Susan L. Wilson, Culture Shock! Egypt: A Guide to Customs and Etiquette (Portland, 1998: Graphic Arts Center Publishing Co.), p. 10
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
[e.e. cummings, 100 Selected Poems, p. 61, Grove Press, n.d.]
No. 49:
(of Ever-Ever Land i speak
sweet morons gather roun’
who does not dare to stand or sit
may take it lying down)
down with the human soul
and anything else uncanned
for everyone carries canopeners
in Ever-Ever Land
(for Ever-Ever Land is a place
that’s as simple as simple can be
and was built that way on purpose
by simple people like we)
down with hell and heaven
and all the religious fuss
infinity pleased our parents
one inch looks good to us
(and Ever-Ever Land is a place
that’s measured and safe and known
where it’s lucky to be unlucky
and the hitler lies down with the cohn)
down above all with love
and everything perverse
or which makes some feel more better
when all ought to feel less worse
(but only sameness is normal
in Ever-Ever Land
for a bad cigar is a woman
but a gland is only a gland)
No. 49:
(of Ever-Ever Land i speak
sweet morons gather roun’
who does not dare to stand or sit
may take it lying down)
down with the human soul
and anything else uncanned
for everyone carries canopeners
in Ever-Ever Land
(for Ever-Ever Land is a place
that’s as simple as simple can be
and was built that way on purpose
by simple people like we)
down with hell and heaven
and all the religious fuss
infinity pleased our parents
one inch looks good to us
(and Ever-Ever Land is a place
that’s measured and safe and known
where it’s lucky to be unlucky
and the hitler lies down with the cohn)
down above all with love
and everything perverse
or which makes some feel more better
when all ought to feel less worse
(but only sameness is normal
in Ever-Ever Land
for a bad cigar is a woman
but a gland is only a gland)
Monday, April 18, 2011
The point of no return for a probable Israeli attack on Iran may have passed in 2005, when senior leaders decided that the idea was not worth it. Yet as Amir Oren reports in Haaretz, the successive missile defense system known as the Iron Dome appears to be resurrecting the go-bomb-Iran idea, as evidenced by the fact that any barrage of missiles in reprisal may be shot down by the new, and expensive, system. Oren points out that when former Israeli PM Ehud Olmert and current Defense Minister Ehud Barak pressed GWB to green-light a strike on Iranian nuclear sites in January 2008, Dubya just refused, perhaps reinforcing the image of the United States as the bossman-called-partner. Bush commented that Barak in particular really freaked him out. Now there is a scary man, one who even frightened the former president. Chag sameach!
Monday, April 11, 2011
On March 28, the Old Gray Lady began charging online users for its content. This supposedly radical idea (the WSJ was there years ago) has now yielded some, well, mixed results. From reporter Heather Dougherty at HitWise:
For a look at what I have been up to these past two months, check out my Wordpress page, The Euphemist. Truth be told, time has been scarce for Independentista lately. But now I have been into that Twitter stuff. My handle is @lexiconstable.
The effect of the pay wall has been somewhat stronger upon the total page views for the NYTimes.com, with the same comparison of a 12 day period before the launch of the pay wall to the 12 days following the launch. For all 12 days, there was a decline in total page views which ranged between 11% and 30%.”
For a look at what I have been up to these past two months, check out my Wordpress page, The Euphemist. Truth be told, time has been scarce for Independentista lately. But now I have been into that Twitter stuff. My handle is @lexiconstable.
Saturday, February 12, 2011
Nate Silver, the number-crunching wunderkid, does the math for how much a blogger or freelancer is likely to make from any given post to Huffington, now an AOL property — which offers prospective writers the chance to churn out 5-10 articles every day for five dollars a pop.
Silver: “…you find that the average blog post — which we estimate generated a couple thousand page views — was worth about $13 in advertising revenue. The median blog post, with several hundred views, was worth only $3 or $4.”
Fantastic.
Silver: “…you find that the average blog post — which we estimate generated a couple thousand page views — was worth about $13 in advertising revenue. The median blog post, with several hundred views, was worth only $3 or $4.”
Fantastic.
Thursday, February 10, 2011
“All people yearn for ... the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed”
— President Obama in Cairo (2009)
A stark contrast from what is being disseminated from State and, of course, the White House. The transition does not appear to be meaningful... yadda yadda. Tomorrow brings the test of whether the revolution grinds to a halt due to a (possible) military takeover or is reinvigorated by the words of the obstinant autocrat, or both, or something we cannot predict.
Wednesday, February 02, 2011
Tahrir Square in Cairo is sounding more like Tiananmen, as pro-Mubarak forces are trying to put down the popular revolt by force. There are now reports of serious casualties, according to people on the scene via Twitter feeds.
Chris Hayes (@chrislhayes) and Noor Khan talk about what has been brewing in the streets up until it all erupted.
Meanwhile, Stephen Carter wonders aloud if GWB was right about his professed desire to expand democracy in the Arab world, and Anshel Pfeffer tells fellow Israelis to calm down about the alleged prospect of imminent Islamist rule.
Chris Hayes (@chrislhayes) and Noor Khan talk about what has been brewing in the streets up until it all erupted.
Meanwhile, Stephen Carter wonders aloud if GWB was right about his professed desire to expand democracy in the Arab world, and Anshel Pfeffer tells fellow Israelis to calm down about the alleged prospect of imminent Islamist rule.
Tuesday, February 01, 2011
Friday, January 28, 2011
Danny Sullivan imagines what the Demand Media version of the NYT would look like. (Above: a possible future?)
North Africa has been convulsing for weeks. First, Tunis and now Cairo and Alexandria. For both a familiar script: massive street demonstrations by the young and jobless and desperate and angry, met up against by overwhelming state violence, tear gas, curfews. (Above: an Egyptian demonstrator kisses a riot policeman, now a widely-circulated photo.) The public service that Al Jazeera is providing really is incredible, as reflected in my feed from repostings by @lisang (Lisa Goldman) and @jeremyscahill (Jeremy Scahill). And of course @dailydish (the ever-present Andrew Sullivan).
To digest, the authorities in Cairo, who have been receiving American diplomatic and financial largess since the late 1970s, have now cut off internet access and closed the airport. Hosni Mubarak is trying to put out a fire that does not appear to be quenchable. Meanwhile in Israel, which has been used as another vital US client, there was a peaceful assembly of 20,000 citizens against its government for its perilous decisions but nothing at all like the sturm und drang surrounding it, particularly at its northern border where Hezbollah now holds the reins of power in Beirut.
No one has a crystal ball with which to divine how all of this turns out across the region, the implications for US policy, etc. But it is needless to say how momentous it all is, and that before we can figure out all of the details many things will be totally changed. If that is too general a statement it is of course intended to be, since events are moving too quickly.
Monday, January 10, 2011
The grisly incident this weekend in Tucson, Arizona has sparked a row about extremism in political discourse, particularly violent rhetoric. The following is clipped from an article written by me for The Wooster Voice in April 2009:
Laird Wilcox is a specialist in political extremism, drawing up some time ago a list of specific traits that extremists use. He identifies 21 of them in total; its versatility is very broad. I’d like to go through them point by point — which should help us in our everyday filtering of valuable information from the bullshit.
1. Character assassination. Extremists care not at all for the merits of the argument before them, and instead will savage the personality or “associations” of the one making the argument. This serves to throw red herrings in our path.
2. Name-calling and labeling. In a recent episode of “The O’Reilly Factor,” radio/TV personality Bill O’Reilly declared that once someone resorts to calling people names, they’ve “lost the argument.” QED.
3. Irresponsible sweeping generalizations. My favorite. Wilcox writes that extremists “tend to make sweeping claims or judgments on little or no evidence” — facts are for the weak, waffling types.
4. Inadequate proof for assertions. This is similar to generalization, but the difference is that, to extremists, standards of evidence are so weak that they collapse upon rational inspection.
For the sake of space, here are the rest: “advocacy of double standards”; “tendency to view their opponents and critics as essentially evil”; “Manichaean worldview”; “advocacy of some degree of censorship or repression of their opponents and/or critics”; a tendency to “identify themselves in terms of who their enemies are”; “argument by intimidation”; “use of slogans, buzzwords and thought-stopping cliches”; “assumption of moral superiority over others”; “doomsday thinking”; “belief that it’s okay to do bad things in the service of a ‘good’ cause”; “emphasis on emotional responses and … less importance attached to reasoning and logical analysis”; “hypersensitivity and vigilance”; “use of supernatural rationale for beliefs and actions”; “problems tolerating ambiguity and uncertainty”; “inclination toward ‘groupthink’”; “tendency to personalize hostility” and a belief that “the system is no good unless they win.”
Sunday, January 09, 2011
The would-be assassin of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, a 22-year-old creep with a psychotic persona, did not appear fully-formed out of a vacuum. It appears overly-simplified, as well as convenient, to place blame for yesterday’s incident on the likes of Palin and Beck, but by now it is more than obvious that dangerous, apocalyptic rhetoric has serious consequences (cf the Pima county sheriff).
Above: from a time not too far from our own, courtesy the John Birch Society.
Thursday, January 06, 2011
Protect the Bay
An estimated two million fish mysteriously died in the Chesapeake because of “cold weather,” according to anonymous officials informing the Baltimore Sun. This “joins a growing list of reports from around the globe of mysterious fish and bird deaths.”
The apocalyptic-minded may suspect something more sinister than a deep chill, though as of yet no evidence of some strange divine plan has emerged.
An estimated two million fish mysteriously died in the Chesapeake because of “cold weather,” according to anonymous officials informing the Baltimore Sun. This “joins a growing list of reports from around the globe of mysterious fish and bird deaths.”
The apocalyptic-minded may suspect something more sinister than a deep chill, though as of yet no evidence of some strange divine plan has emerged.
Monday, January 03, 2011
There appears to be little to add to the WikiLeaks saga, which already feels like a story from yesteryear. Yet several puzzle pieces lay on the table, unconnected to the bigger picture that has already been put forth: a humiliated State Department, enraged Pentagon, irritated Swedish prosecutors, and a tagged and house-bound cyberpunk whose organization has become an unstoppable force in our information age.
In my investigation of how a gallivanting, galvanizing hacker from Melbourne, who first made headlines in the Australian press in 1995 for breaking into a telecom’s mainframe, became public enemy no. 1 over the course of several months in the past year (from April onward), the unconnected pieces became more visible.
As follows: how did a relatively low-level military operative, Lt. Bradley Manning, get access to hundreds of thousands of confidential cables? And if the accusations are borne out, what were his motives? As for Mr. Assange, the “high-tech terrorist” in Vice President Biden’s now memorable turn of phrase, does he really believe that his legal troubles in Sweden, which led to an Interpol warrant for his arrest, were concoted in Langley by spooks out to get him?
The “state’s secrets” continue to be released in periodic batches to the press, of which the New York Times is demonstrating considerable discretion. One multi-gigabyte file alleged to be a smoking gun against Bank of America is on the horizon, reams of files said to echo the Enron paper trail that can be easily torrented. The list of targets — the military, our diplomatic apparatus, and now a major financial player — raises another question which, though it may play into the propaganda campaign against WikiLeaks, is worth asking: does Assange intend to bring down the United States?
That question implies that his organization, which appears rather anarchic, even has such a capability, given the fact nothing earth-shattering has come of the cables themselves, aside from understandably mortified embassies. But the “high-tech terrorist” meme may retain much power, the facts aside, many of which remain unclear. It is thus imperative to discover them: writing in a piece for CBS, tech writer Joshua Norman noted, as Scott Horton did in August, that US officials saw the whistle-blowing group, which includes Chinese dissidents in its roster, as a “national security threat” in 2008.
Among similar lines but within a broader frame, Francis Shor observed yesterday, “Given the battered economic and military standing of the United States over the past several years, the hysterical reaction of the American political class over the recent release of State Department cables by WikiLeaks is not surprising.”
In my investigation of how a gallivanting, galvanizing hacker from Melbourne, who first made headlines in the Australian press in 1995 for breaking into a telecom’s mainframe, became public enemy no. 1 over the course of several months in the past year (from April onward), the unconnected pieces became more visible.
As follows: how did a relatively low-level military operative, Lt. Bradley Manning, get access to hundreds of thousands of confidential cables? And if the accusations are borne out, what were his motives? As for Mr. Assange, the “high-tech terrorist” in Vice President Biden’s now memorable turn of phrase, does he really believe that his legal troubles in Sweden, which led to an Interpol warrant for his arrest, were concoted in Langley by spooks out to get him?
The “state’s secrets” continue to be released in periodic batches to the press, of which the New York Times is demonstrating considerable discretion. One multi-gigabyte file alleged to be a smoking gun against Bank of America is on the horizon, reams of files said to echo the Enron paper trail that can be easily torrented. The list of targets — the military, our diplomatic apparatus, and now a major financial player — raises another question which, though it may play into the propaganda campaign against WikiLeaks, is worth asking: does Assange intend to bring down the United States?
That question implies that his organization, which appears rather anarchic, even has such a capability, given the fact nothing earth-shattering has come of the cables themselves, aside from understandably mortified embassies. But the “high-tech terrorist” meme may retain much power, the facts aside, many of which remain unclear. It is thus imperative to discover them: writing in a piece for CBS, tech writer Joshua Norman noted, as Scott Horton did in August, that US officials saw the whistle-blowing group, which includes Chinese dissidents in its roster, as a “national security threat” in 2008.
Among similar lines but within a broader frame, Francis Shor observed yesterday, “Given the battered economic and military standing of the United States over the past several years, the hysterical reaction of the American political class over the recent release of State Department cables by WikiLeaks is not surprising.”
Thursday, December 30, 2010
WSJ: INDIA, IRAN’S LARGEST TRADING PARTNER, HELPS U.S. ISOLATE IRAN IN ABOUT-FACE
BETHESDA — Jay Solomon and Subhadip Sircar reported yesterday that officials at the Reserve Bank of India have “instructed the country’s lenders ... to stop processing current-account transactions with Iran using the ACU,” the Asian Clearing Union, which was “originally set up by the United Nations in 1974 to help facilitate trade in South Asia and headquartered in Tehran.”
US officials believe that the Iranians are using the ACU, based in their country, in order to help finance the Revolutionary Guard, a sprawling paramilitary/social services organization that is increasingly dominant in its economy, according to a 2009 study by the Rand Corp.
As Solomon and Sircar report further, “Major Indian energy companies, including Oil & Natural Gas Corp., have been exploring how to jointly develop energy resources with Iranian partners. India’s Reliance Industries Ltd. was a major supplier of gasoline to Iran, which lacks sufficient refining capabilities, before the international sanctions caused the company to pull back last year.”
BETHESDA — Jay Solomon and Subhadip Sircar reported yesterday that officials at the Reserve Bank of India have “instructed the country’s lenders ... to stop processing current-account transactions with Iran using the ACU,” the Asian Clearing Union, which was “originally set up by the United Nations in 1974 to help facilitate trade in South Asia and headquartered in Tehran.”
US officials believe that the Iranians are using the ACU, based in their country, in order to help finance the Revolutionary Guard, a sprawling paramilitary/social services organization that is increasingly dominant in its economy, according to a 2009 study by the Rand Corp.
As Solomon and Sircar report further, “Major Indian energy companies, including Oil & Natural Gas Corp., have been exploring how to jointly develop energy resources with Iranian partners. India’s Reliance Industries Ltd. was a major supplier of gasoline to Iran, which lacks sufficient refining capabilities, before the international sanctions caused the company to pull back last year.”
Sunday, December 19, 2010
CABLE SHOWS INDIAN INVOLVEMENT IN AFGHANISTAN, AS FEARED BY PAKISTAN
BROOKLYN — India is heavily involved in nation-building efforts in Afghanistan, with the decisive nod of now recently-deceased diplomat Richard Holbrooke, according to a confidential cable sent to the State Department from New Delhi nearly 11 months ago.
The cable, transmitted in January 2010 and signed by Timothy J. Roemer, the top American diplomat in India, suggested that Pakistan’s fears of Indian influence in Afghanistan may be substantiated to some degree, as news of the departure of the top CIA station chief in Pakistan reverberates between Islamabad and Washington.
Holbrooke’s interlocutor, Indian Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao, emphasized that her government’s activities in Afghanistan were wholly “transparent” and not cause for alarm by the Pakistanis, who claim that its arch-rival is meddling in Afghan affairs.
The cable added, “Rao said that Afghanistan has the potential to prosper as a hub or transit point for energy, agriculture and trade if it could be connected to its natural market in India. She said it was unfortunate that Pakistan does not allow this to happen.”
Further, the Indian Foreign Secretary said that Iran could also have a “positive” role in taking part in Afghan efforts to rebuild their war-torn country, a prospect that Washington may be very loath to countenance.
However, one day after that cable was sent, Bruce Riedel, a South Asia expert with background in the CIA, Pentagon and the National Security Council, disclosed that Indian involvement is no secret, nor is their work with the Iranians.
In an interview with Council on Foreign Relations official Bernard Gwertzman, Riedel said, “India announced completion of a $1 billion project to build a road connecting Afghanistan’s main highway to a main highway in Iran, giving Afghanistan access to the Indian Ocean without having to go through Pakistan.”
Riedel added that as far as New Delhi was concerned this was a good development, but as the situation is seen in Islamabad, which is “obsessed with the threat from India,” the infrastructure project and other work “looks like encirclement.”
In another cable, marked secret and dated June 29, 2009, Indian Army Chief of Staff A.K. Antony informed National Security Advisor James Jones, “India has a stake in Afghanistan, reminding him that India’s borders before partition extended to Afghanistan.
“The Indian military is concerned by the situation in Afghanistan, Antony admitted, and stressed that the international community’s operations there must succeed because the India cannot imagine for a moment a Taliban takeover of its ’extended neighbor.’”
BROOKLYN — India is heavily involved in nation-building efforts in Afghanistan, with the decisive nod of now recently-deceased diplomat Richard Holbrooke, according to a confidential cable sent to the State Department from New Delhi nearly 11 months ago.
The cable, transmitted in January 2010 and signed by Timothy J. Roemer, the top American diplomat in India, suggested that Pakistan’s fears of Indian influence in Afghanistan may be substantiated to some degree, as news of the departure of the top CIA station chief in Pakistan reverberates between Islamabad and Washington.
Holbrooke’s interlocutor, Indian Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao, emphasized that her government’s activities in Afghanistan were wholly “transparent” and not cause for alarm by the Pakistanis, who claim that its arch-rival is meddling in Afghan affairs.
The cable added, “Rao said that Afghanistan has the potential to prosper as a hub or transit point for energy, agriculture and trade if it could be connected to its natural market in India. She said it was unfortunate that Pakistan does not allow this to happen.”
Further, the Indian Foreign Secretary said that Iran could also have a “positive” role in taking part in Afghan efforts to rebuild their war-torn country, a prospect that Washington may be very loath to countenance.
However, one day after that cable was sent, Bruce Riedel, a South Asia expert with background in the CIA, Pentagon and the National Security Council, disclosed that Indian involvement is no secret, nor is their work with the Iranians.
In an interview with Council on Foreign Relations official Bernard Gwertzman, Riedel said, “India announced completion of a $1 billion project to build a road connecting Afghanistan’s main highway to a main highway in Iran, giving Afghanistan access to the Indian Ocean without having to go through Pakistan.”
Riedel added that as far as New Delhi was concerned this was a good development, but as the situation is seen in Islamabad, which is “obsessed with the threat from India,” the infrastructure project and other work “looks like encirclement.”
In another cable, marked secret and dated June 29, 2009, Indian Army Chief of Staff A.K. Antony informed National Security Advisor James Jones, “India has a stake in Afghanistan, reminding him that India’s borders before partition extended to Afghanistan.
“The Indian military is concerned by the situation in Afghanistan, Antony admitted, and stressed that the international community’s operations there must succeed because the India cannot imagine for a moment a Taliban takeover of its ’extended neighbor.’”