News & views or whatever comes to mind …
Back to Main
September 26, 2007
OT 07-68
Comments
annie – instead of saying “continents” i should have said of the four more broadly-defined (and populated) “global regions” that comprise the world — africa, asia/pacific, the americas, and europe (someone’s bound to probably make a case for representing the polar regions as well, since it’s so white there) — but only africa is w/o a permanent seat & veto power. population figures put africa at around one billion people and it’s projected to add another 400 million or so by 2025. there have been efforts over the years to revamp the structure of the u.n. & the AU & african leaders continue to press for representation & equity.
Posted by: b real | Sep 29 2007 2:00 utc | 101
Hizbullah: If Israel Attacks Syria, We Will Respond
In an interview with the Nazareth-based Kul al-Arab newspaper scheduled to be published on Friday, Dr Ahmad Malli warned Israel against considering an attack on Syria, saying that the Lebanese organization would respond to such an offensive with full force.
“I believe that things have changed,” Malli explained. “The times when everyone was afraid of the Israeli threats are over. The Zionist entity knows more than anyone that the price of such adventurousness would be heavy, and the Israelis know the price more than anyone.
Posted by: Bea | Sep 29 2007 2:11 utc | 102
but only africa is w/o a permanent seat & veto power.
outrageous, really. damn. i want their voice. are we a global community or what?
y’know, i am reminded of Uncle’s vote for bush (i think that is what he said) in 00, something about ‘bring it on’ let it come faster, so we can all see the total imbalance, feel the repercussions, move thru it faster.
as horrid as everything is, wow, we are only 7 years into the century and doesn’t it seem the american illusion is becoming extremely clear to the average man.
when you look at the globe and comprehend africa not being represented, who doesn’t think ‘racism’? the continual exploitation? it is not some little island like tahiti, it is an entire continent of as many extremely aware people as any continent.
pre web, the war crimes in the ME, may not have filtered the awareness in africa. but anyone watching the globe presently.. how could one not see the obvious implications in the collective resource imperatives (which of course is why b real’s post was #3 onproject censored’s list(the first 2 being US domestic issues)??
i can’t help from prioritizing issues, we all do. iraq, palestine, surveillance, dominionists, neocons..but looking forward, the buck stops in africa. as soon as one master leaves, another takes its place. for the most part americans are clueless. once we secure the oil fields in iraq, and the strategic fields of africa.. what will stop them?
sometimes i think about how long it will take for them (present fascists) to die off, and who will replace them. it isn’t an american issue, it is a global issue. when can us socialists have our turn?
on the home front.. oprah takes on socialized health care”!
“We have been propagandized into believing that socialized is such a negative term,” agreed Winfrey.
ya think!
Posted by: annie | Sep 29 2007 4:00 utc | 103
Thank you rgiap,
Your words and this community are precious to me.
I often wonder what it is that some of us who post regularly here at Moon of Alabama hold in common. Thousands of people have probably visited the Moon of Alabama web site, yet there are only relatively few of us who have taken this as a regular community.
What is unique among us? Is it just randomness, like so many balls falling thru an array into different chutes?
I hope to rally the courage and explain some of my past life and experiences in a future post. However, to do so would reveal a naiveté on my part – more so than I already reveal in my regular writings, and expose embarrassments of my youth. I once started such a post, even writing about a particular incident – a trauma with an unhealed wound. A trauma with a scar that maybe has been a major factor seperating and isolating me from the thinking of so many others throughout my entire adult life. This trauma I never think about and I trembled, almost fearful of a panic attack, in remembering.
When Monolycus (or was it Malooga?) mentioned talking points when we get together with our families during the holidays, I understand where he is coming from. My neighbors, my family, those I work with, do not think or approach life with the same attitude that I do.
That is not to say that all posters here at Moon of Alabama are of a common thread. In fact, our differences are more valuable to each of us than our similarities. But there is definitely something in common. The search for a greater understanding about the world around us, and an emotional sharing of concern for the little person who gets so often abused in this world is something many of us appear to have in common. I know those are some of the reasons I return to Moon of Alabama. And for myself, there is a quest for an ideal that I have not yet formalized in my mind.
But I think there maybe is something more in explaining all of this. Is it possible that we all have suffered some personal trauma, perhaps on just an emotional level within ourselves, which is, in itself, this common trait among us?
Again, I am just thinking out loud here, but I continually wonder.
Posted by: Rick | Sep 29 2007 4:08 utc | 104
Is it possible that we all have suffered some personal trauma, perhaps on just an emotional level within ourselves, which is, in itself, this common trait among us?
so many people have suffered personal trauma, and they aren’t here. i don’t think i am here as a result of personal trauma(other than the assault of world events).
do you hear them calling when you lay you head on the pillow?
can you rest peacefully knowing others are in pain because of our deeds?
are we isolated individuals, or are we part of a whole, a whole w/members suffering?
just an emotional level within ourselveswhich is, in itself, this common trait among us?
i would imagine so dear rick..
Posted by: annie | Sep 29 2007 4:21 utc | 105
to be clear(from my last post)
just an emotional level within ourselves
or an emotional level that reaches out.
which is, in itself, this common trait among us?
i would imagine so dear rick..
Posted by: annie | Sep 29 2007 4:23 utc | 106
tonite, a few selections from gen william ward’s written Q&A in advance of his hearing this thursday in the senate. gen ward is being nominated as the head combatant for the new unified combatant command AFRICOM. (a pdf of the txt is available in a link in this DoS pr piece)
on the geostrategic value of the horn of africa (and exactly who’s interest is being served):
Much of the world’s oil flow and other critical mineral resources pass through international waters near the HOA coast. It is vital for the U.S. to prevent disruption of these global superhighways.
vital, yes, that’s the word frequently used to link africa, her resources, & u.s. interests.
an example of a non-answer:
Q: Do you forsee China’s growing energy demands affecting security developments in Africa?
WARD: Africa is growing in military, strategic and economic importance in global affairs. We are seeking more effective ways to prevent and respond to humanitarian crises, improve cooperation efforts to stem transnational terrorism and sustain enduring efforts that contribute to African unity and bolster security on the continent.
seriously, that was his answer!
earlier, this was his response to this question, which is probably what will earn him the confirmation:
Q: Some have asserted AFRICOM is simply an American effort to protect U.S. access to gas and oil; to fight terrorists and Islamic radicals; and to counter China’s interest and activism.
How do you respond to these assertions?
WARD: AFRICOM will be primarily focused on conducting security cooperation to build capacities in areas such as peacekeeping, maritime security, border security, counterterrorism skills, and as appropriate supporting USG agencies and implementing other programs that promote regional stability.
on the threats from global climate change on africa (and why it’s such a potentially important issue):
Q: What are the national security implications for the United States?
WARD: Climate change could pose a serious threat to U.S. national security interest in Africa. Some countries could be pushed into greater instability as a result of floods, droughts, or other catastrophes brought on by global climate change. Unstable areas provide the perfect recruiting ground for terrorist groups seeking new blood for their war against the West. Devastating storms in the Gulf of Guinea, for example, might damage the region’s oil infrastructure, leading to disruptions in oil production and higher oil prices for the global economy.
oh, let’s see if i can come up w/ an example of the devastation that climate change may wreak upon africa — THE OIL INFRASTRUCTURE MAY BE DAMAGED!!!
shudder
Posted by: b real | Sep 29 2007 4:36 utc | 107
b real – thanks for the link. I’ll see if I can find you something on listen’n post’s. Yeah – shudder – he has his priorities in the right place otherwise how could he be Condi’s twin?
Posted by: BenIAM | Sep 29 2007 5:19 utc | 108
@ Alamet 94
There are probably better links than this one (including WMR’s pay for view site), but this seems to document
the connection between the plane (N987SA) and rendition flights.
Needless to say, this is all just another example of those crazy coincidences that naive folk think shows a continuation of the CIA’s long history as the major multinational drug trafficking enterprise. As I’m sure will soon be explained to everyone’s complete satisfaction, the plane had undoubtedly been “retired” and sold to “apparently responsible” owners, so the only legitimate questions we will have to ponder is who is
“Donna Blue”, and why is the Broward area of Florida such a busy region for shady air operations.
Posted by: Hannah K. O’Luthon | Sep 29 2007 5:37 utc | 109
b real@107
what I want to know is who voted to confirm Jendayi Frazier ? Did’nt they know she has hair on her chest. Yellow-cake from Niger can do that to you.
Posted by: jony_b_cool | Sep 29 2007 5:46 utc | 110
@Rick (#104)
That one was more likely Malooga. I don’t recall saying anything along those lines, and it would have been very out of character for me to have done. I haven’t spoken to my relatives in years and I don’t visit anyone during the holidays. I have no illusions that anyone cares about any of that, but I’m compelled to repair misattributions as I see them.
Annie asked “are we isolated individuals, or are we part of a whole, a whole w/members suffering?”, which is only a question that would occur to a person who has achieved some level of comfort and camaraderie here. For me, the answer is unequivocal.
“We live as we dream- alone.” -from Heart of Darkness,Joseph Conrad.
Posted by: Monolycus | Sep 29 2007 6:57 utc | 111
hannah, at the very end of your link…
The aircraft also touched down in several Caribbean locations including Barbados; Aruba; Montego Bay, Jamaica; Higuey and Puerto Plata, Dominican Republic; St. Thomas; San Juan and Aguadilla, Puerto Rico, Nassau, Bahamas, St. Kitts; Cancun, Mexico; Pointe-a-Pitre, Guadeloupe; and St. Lucia, in addition to Kailua/Kona, Kahului, and Honolulu, Hawaii, Bermuda, and Jackson, Wyoming.
jackson wyoming?
monolycus..when i spoke of ‘a whole w/members suffering’ i was speaking of a whole globe, or humanity, not specifically members @ moon. although many of us ‘live alone’ or may feel isolated are we people who go about our lives w/concern only for our immediate surroundings? can you limit your emotions to your personal situation?
i feel some urgency wrt to the state of the affairs. it goes beyond simply going thru life w/ eyes passively open. looking within, yes i agree we all are alone tho may experience it to different degrees. however there are levels of self absorption. where do we focus when we look outside of ourselves, how far is the reach? for some people their empathy may be limited to their family, their race, their country, those that share the same political leaning. when i was referencing ‘a whole’, i meant people who’s vision is extending, or reaching out. that includes you, at least in my experience.
Posted by: annie | Sep 29 2007 16:03 utc | 113
shit! i was only trying to bold that little section in the blockquote!
Posted by: annie | Sep 29 2007 16:04 utc | 114
@annie
Nothing wrong with being bold when the occasion calls for it.
I wasn’t sure which scope was being referred to (here, specifically, or the world-at-large), and thought it was an extension of the kind of meta-discussion we’ve been having lately. It wouldn’t have changed my answer at that time, but I was also being particularly churlish.
To be more fair than I was the first time around, there is (at least)an entire branch of philosophy devoted to this particular question. The cartesian maxim “Je pense, donc je suis” is really just the result of reducing this existential doubt to a level of silliness.
The problem, as I see it, is the blind acceptance of our perception of others outside of us as being an objective truth. When you ask “can you limit your emotions to your personal situation?”, the answer seems to be obviously “No, I can not”, but then I have to qualify that. My emotions and responses are entirely personal even if they are responses to events and individuals that I perceive to be removed from my personal situation. In fact, the particular strength and quality of the emotional response I experience is entirely a projection of my own personal perceptions onto this stimulus which I also perceive as impersonal and originating from outside of myself. The chief mistake is in concluding that things work from the outside going in, when, in fact, they actually move the other way around.
How else can individuals percieve identical stimuli and have such diametrically opposite emotional responses to them? A Zionist has an entirely different emotional response to the death of a Palestinian she has never met than I would have over the very same event. Why should this be? The stimulus is identical, even the perception is presumably identical (newspaper report or video footage), yet the projections that take place occur entirely in our own heads and are independent of “objective reality”. Those with an authoritarian disposition think the USAPATRIOT Act is a good thing that is designed to protect them; I feel differently, although I do perceive that it has the potential to affect my personal situation and this charges my response somewhat.
This process we go through can lead us into some nasty existential traps. Ultimately, it is this process of projecting our subjective, personal and entirely irrational perceptions of reality onto the global canvas that caused some unnamed Bush official (Karl Rove) to remark that the US administration manufactures reality. In a way, he was correct… but it is a trivial observation. We all manufacture reality. The trap that the unnamed offical (Karl Rove) fell into is allowing the recognition of the subjective nature of experience to rationalize an entirely infantile solipsism. I suppose it must be more difficult for people who lead more privileged existences not to fall into that particular trap.
It is also this same process which resulted in Rick’s thread about the meaning of the USA. The objective reality of it is inconsequential… less than inconsequential. If it were a truly objective, empirical question, we wouldn’t feel anything at all about it. The fact that we do, and strongly at that, indicates that any “reality” that it enjoys has been projected onto it from within. Objectively, it doesn’t exist at all. This produces an acute existential angst… or, rather, we produce an acute existential angst and attribute it to the semiotic figure that we have projected our emotions on to. We, here, are not solipsistic enough to conclude that a thing is not important simply because it does not really exist. Some of the most important things in the world don’t have any objective reality whatsoever. Recognizing that does produce quite a bit of discomfort, though.
This leads to the heart of your question: “where do we focus when we look outside of ourselves, how far is the reach? for some people their empathy may be limited to their family, their race, their country, those that share the same political leaning.” If we know that we can not know with certainty what goes on outside of us and elect to care only about a limited number of externals, then I would say it is a question of base “empathy”, that is, literally sharing “feeling”. It is much easier to place yourself in the shoes of those who are subjectively closer to your own perceptions than to expand your perceptions. “Empathy” is coincidental. I happen to respond to a semiotic stimulus in a way that is similar to the way you happen to respond and therefore I perceive that we have a bond and I “care about” you. It is safe, comfortable and free from existential angst to restrict ourselves to this level of perception. But we’ve passed that, haven’t we?
You wrote that “i feel some urgency wrt to the state of the affairs. it goes beyond simply going thru life w/ eyes passively open.” Where does that urgency come from? Within, of course… but what is it? I offer that it is precisely the existential angst of moving past base “empathy” towards genuine compassion. I offer that it is more than coincidentally sharing a subjective experience, but rather actively expanding your projections to include a wider and wider number of fellow experients. It has not become more urgent because of accidental events; it has always been urgent. When we recognise the world as it is instead of as we would like it to be, we must also recognise that a priori urgency.
Posted by: Monolycus | Sep 30 2007 7:38 utc | 115
Nice piece of surgery there Monolycus. In which case we should also acknowledge that those on the right are also well aware of that a-priori urgency, if it is indeed a-prori, and so, work dilligently to belittle and disarm it. The work of rupert murdoch comes to mind.
Posted by: anna missed | Sep 30 2007 20:10 utc | 117
Thanks. You’re absolutely right, anna missed, they do work diligently. As with everything, there is a reason for this. We are trying to grapple and come to terms with the world as it is, but that does not imply a specific agenda. They, conversely, are in the semiotics game. Theirs is to impose their own Within to the great Without (as far as something like that is possible). They belittle and disarm the urgency by controlling the quantity and quality of the stimuli.
We act with no specific or common purpose. They have one, and it is to really eff up the ineffable.
Posted by: Monolycus | Oct 1 2007 6:50 utc | 118
Effing up the ineffable indeed, This summer I returned to my (podunk&tiny) home town for a (long overdue) visit. I always do some ad-hoc research when there, as its a fascinating microcosm of a bigger picture. 70% republican, median income hovering around 30k per year, and housing prices lowest in the state, not to mention an epidemic of trailers filling in. The area is 98% white and found out this time was originally settled (in mass) by immigrants from Wales who were strict Calvinists – whom as we know find their central mission in life as obedience to authority, and punishment for noncompliance. The notion of “ideals” often run deeper than expected, and often at odds with any sense of historical nationalism – and so are fertile ground for semiotic exploitation, as such.
Posted by: anna missed | Oct 1 2007 7:57 utc | 119