Saturday, May 04, 2002

i'm in the process of moving this whole weblog to here.

Thursday, May 02, 2002

"Israel - like America - has to be wrong because it is more powerful; because, again, might is never right."

first goldberg grossly misrepresents both fanon and sartre, neither of whom advocate violence, but merely seek to understand its origins. this is something goldberg doesn't do, simply accepting violence as inevitable. but this is just a side note indicating that while he's obviously intelligent, his philosophical argument lacks some integrity.

goldberg also misrepresents the political argument against his own. specifically, he focuses his attention on the more irrational of the arguments against israel while completely ignoring the more rational arguments.

israel isn't wrong because it's more powerful. it's wrong because it's pursuing policies that result in the deaths, arrests, and injuries of innocent civilians under the implicit false assumptions that 1) all palestinians are terrorists, and, perhaps more importantly, 2) exercising more force will solve political problems.

palestine authority is wrong for the same reasons. (it assumes all israeli's are responsible for israel's actions and relies on force to solve problems.) the reason a larger level of criticism has been directed at israel is that as the more organized and powerful party to the conflict, israel has larger potential and larger responsibility for ending it.

so power doesn't make someone wrong, but when they are wrong, the fact that they have power makes them more responsible for making it right.

Wednesday, May 01, 2002

i'm moving soon.

over the past few days i've been working on the preliminary steps toward getting my website into such a state that i could use it to manage a weblog. this will allow me to do more interesting things than blogger allows me to do, and get rid of the ads, (or replace them with my own).

the first step was a text webapp. that's done. users (free registration) can create, edit, and delete texts. they can create references from one text to another.

a weblog, then, is a text with a bunch of other texts that reference it. one of those texts is a template that describes how the weblog should be shown as HTML (or XML or any other text format).

a chat thread, when i get to that, will be a tree of texts all pointing to higher-level texts.

so today i made a weblog webapp. there's only one weblog right now, and all the linking is still done "manually," but it all works. so in the next week or so, i'll hopefully be moving all of my content to

Tuesday, April 30, 2002

"Israel decided on Tuesday to go on blocking the arrival of a U.N. team to probe the army's assault on Jenin refugee camp"

this isn't much different from iraq refusing to allow UN inspectors. are we also making plans to oust sharon?

Monday, April 29, 2002

war: coming soon.

"U.S. Envisions Blueprint on Iraq Including Big Invasion Next Year"

how is it that we are able to script a war, but unable to prevent it? the bush administration's willingness to delay the next war until it becomes more convenient suggests that there's no emergency that demands a war.

and what just cause is this war supporting? our right to inspect another country for nuclear weapons? what about our own nuclear weapons?

it just keeps getting more ridiculous:

"But senior officials now acknowledge that any offensive would probably be delayed until early next year, allowing time to create the right military, economic and diplomatic conditions."

since when can "senior officials" control military, economic and diplomatic conditions?

why are we investing all of this time, money, and energy in an unnecessary war when there is no shortage of domestic problems (remember bush's education platform?) to be solved?
"The violence led to Mr. Chavez's temporary downfall when military officers, blaming the government for the deaths, publicly withdrew their support for the president."

that's interesting because just last week, the bush administration was openly admitting that it had taken actions which "led to Mr. Chavez's temporary downfall." this looks like a poor attempt to draw attention away from the bush administration's effort to remove a democratically-elected official in venezuela (among other countries).
every time i turned in a draft of my paper, i would get back the same comment that i should say the feminist movement and the socialist movement instead of feminist movement and socialist movement. what i never had time to explain was that this was not a grammatical error, but rather an intentional linguistic means of suggesting a different understanding of liberation movements. i noticed bell hooks does this and after i thought about it, i decided to do it myself.

the point is that there is no the feminist movement. people's political thoughts and actions don't fit conveniently into categories. they spill over the edges we impose. people move in a variety of different directions and yet can all be feminist. you're not either with or against "the" feminist movement. you can be with it in some ways and against it in others. in those ways you are with it, you are contributing to feminist movement: the movement of the feminist cause. feminism is not something people adopt as a whole, but rather in small parts. removing "the" from before feminist movement recognizes this.

it also recognizes that there is no monolithic structure to feminist movement. it's not like an army in which people wear uniforms and you can easily distinguish between who is a part and who is not. it's an abstract concept that exists primarily in people's understandings of how the world does and should work and in their various actions resulting from these understandings.

another implication by this simple omission is that movement exists relative to moving people and not vice versa. "the feminist movement" implies that feminist movement exists as an object independent of people. it doesn't; "feminist movement" is dependent upon actors who do the moving.

all of this in a simple "the."