It is the end of the year again. Looking for a charity to give your money to? Maybe something other than the usual suspects? Here are five organizations worthy of your cash.
1. Ruckus Society
Training the people in the art of protest
2. Electronic Frontier Foundation
The laws on the use of technology that are established today will set the ground rules for a generation at least. Help make sure they are fair.
3. El Futuro and El Centro Latino
North Carolina has the fastest growing Latino population in the nation. These two organizations provide much needed community support in a region that is ill equipped to provide services for Spanish speakers.
4. First Place Fund for Youth
On the day they turn 18, youths in foster care, already having faced more challenges than most of us will experience in a lifetime, are turned out into the world. Help them successfully make the transition to independent adulthood.
5. Poetry Flash
Art in general and poetry in particular are only in the borders of the public consciousness. Poetry Flash, by providing monthly listings of poetry events in the West, helps maintain a vibrant artistic community.
Wednesday, December 21, 2005
Sunday, December 18, 2005
Domestic Spying and Secrecy
At the moment, the deabate over domestic spying is centered on the legality of Bush’s executive order. The question I want to ask is this: is the secrecy of the program justified? Is such a program something over which we could have had an honest and forthright debate or is the secrecy so essential to the effectiveness of the spying that Bush was justified in issuing the order in secret?
Bush argues that public acknowledgement aids terrorists: "our enemies have learned information they should not have, and the unauthorized disclosure of this effort damages our national security and puts our citizens at risk. Revealing classified information is illegal, alerts our enemies and endangers our country.” Twice in two sentences Bush links disclosure of the order to danger to Americans.
Is there are connection? How might knowledge of the order benefit terrorists? Terrorists would be alerted to the fact that America was being vigilant in the war against terror. Would they have taken additional precautions to avoid detection? It seems likely that terrorists already would have been doing everything possible to avoid detection. Surely any self-respecting terrorist would have already considered the possibility that a phone might be tapped. Therefore it seems unlikely that knowledge of this program would have changed terrorist behavior significantly. This being the case, the Bush’s secrecy hardly seems justified.
The only other reason for not making the spying public was that the public would not have stood for it. The justification for government secrecy is that sometimes doing what is in the public’s wishes requires that they not know what the government is doing. Bush seems to think he knows what is good for the American people better than they do.
Bush argues that public acknowledgement aids terrorists: "our enemies have learned information they should not have, and the unauthorized disclosure of this effort damages our national security and puts our citizens at risk. Revealing classified information is illegal, alerts our enemies and endangers our country.” Twice in two sentences Bush links disclosure of the order to danger to Americans.
Is there are connection? How might knowledge of the order benefit terrorists? Terrorists would be alerted to the fact that America was being vigilant in the war against terror. Would they have taken additional precautions to avoid detection? It seems likely that terrorists already would have been doing everything possible to avoid detection. Surely any self-respecting terrorist would have already considered the possibility that a phone might be tapped. Therefore it seems unlikely that knowledge of this program would have changed terrorist behavior significantly. This being the case, the Bush’s secrecy hardly seems justified.
The only other reason for not making the spying public was that the public would not have stood for it. The justification for government secrecy is that sometimes doing what is in the public’s wishes requires that they not know what the government is doing. Bush seems to think he knows what is good for the American people better than they do.
Saturday, December 17, 2005
Winning in Iraq? Timelines and Benchmarks
Last week when Howard Dean declared that the war in Iraq was unwinnable, he was forced to back down from his statements. This week a cover story in the Weekly Standard declares the war is winnable. With all the debate, no one seems to be discussing the obvious question: what does winning mean? This isn’t a war fought against a government; it isn’t a war fought for territory. It is part of the war on terror but that is a larger issue that extends beyond Iraq. What specifically does winning in Iraq mean? The best answer would seem to be that we are fighting for stability and democracy in Iraq. Which is fine, but how will we know when we have accomplished these objectives? Democracy is an abstraction and stability is relative.
We need to be engaged in a national conversation about what defines winning. The talk in Washington is now about troop withdrawals. It seems increasingly clear there will be some move in that direction as we get closer to the midterm elections. Timelines, although politically popular, only take into account half the equation: how long Americans are willing to stay in Iraq. The other more important question is what needs to happen on the ground to reach the point where it makes sense to begin withdrawing the troops and, at some point down the road, declare victory. We need benchmarks that will let us judge how we are doing and hold politicians accountable. These benchmarks could be anything from the number of trained Iraqi troops to measures of safety to measures related to elections.
The problem is that setting benchmarks aren’t in the interest of either party. Benchmarks would force the Democrats to, you know, actually have a plan and to acknowledge that immediate withdrawal of the troops isn’t an option. And benchmarks would leave Bush vulnerable to being held accountable if the benchmarks weren’t met. This is a terrible political failure. Without an honest conversation about what it means to win the war, one thing is clear: we can’t win.
We need to be engaged in a national conversation about what defines winning. The talk in Washington is now about troop withdrawals. It seems increasingly clear there will be some move in that direction as we get closer to the midterm elections. Timelines, although politically popular, only take into account half the equation: how long Americans are willing to stay in Iraq. The other more important question is what needs to happen on the ground to reach the point where it makes sense to begin withdrawing the troops and, at some point down the road, declare victory. We need benchmarks that will let us judge how we are doing and hold politicians accountable. These benchmarks could be anything from the number of trained Iraqi troops to measures of safety to measures related to elections.
The problem is that setting benchmarks aren’t in the interest of either party. Benchmarks would force the Democrats to, you know, actually have a plan and to acknowledge that immediate withdrawal of the troops isn’t an option. And benchmarks would leave Bush vulnerable to being held accountable if the benchmarks weren’t met. This is a terrible political failure. Without an honest conversation about what it means to win the war, one thing is clear: we can’t win.
Tuesday, September 27, 2005
Southern California = Quebec?
Slate’s Mickey Kaus on increasing use of Spanish in Southern California:
I don’t think the analogy between the situation in Southern California and in Quebec is a good fit. Quebec is a culturally and linguistically distinct region within a monolingual English nation. As such, the differences between it and the rest of the county are pronounced. This is nothing like the situation in the US. The geographic fluidity of immigrant populations, mirroring the mobility of the general US population, means there is no extreme cultural demarcation as in the case of Quebec. In the US, the Hispanic population is everywhere. When one thinks of Spanish speaking populations one thinks of New York or Miami, but even in North Carolina where I live there is a significant and rapidly growing Hispanic community. See also the recent LA Times article on the rebuilding of New Orleans. It will likely be rebuilt as a Hispanic city. Imagine how different the Canadian situation would be if the populations of, say, Vancouver and Calgary were each 30% or 40% French speaking. In short, even as Southern California becomes, increasing, a Spanish speaking region, it won’t be isolated from the rest of the country. The changes and challenges that the US faces and will continue to face as its Hispanic population grows certainly are significant. But it seems unlikely that they will be much like those in Canada. I’ll leave speculating on what the change will be for another time but expect new and exciting cultural formations, unlike ones we have seen before.
For more information on Latinos see this study http://www.brook.edu/es/urban/census/citygrowth.htm
it's worth worrying about a) the possible collapse of a common language and b)
the possible Quebec-like Mexification of Southern California
I don’t think the analogy between the situation in Southern California and in Quebec is a good fit. Quebec is a culturally and linguistically distinct region within a monolingual English nation. As such, the differences between it and the rest of the county are pronounced. This is nothing like the situation in the US. The geographic fluidity of immigrant populations, mirroring the mobility of the general US population, means there is no extreme cultural demarcation as in the case of Quebec. In the US, the Hispanic population is everywhere. When one thinks of Spanish speaking populations one thinks of New York or Miami, but even in North Carolina where I live there is a significant and rapidly growing Hispanic community. See also the recent LA Times article on the rebuilding of New Orleans. It will likely be rebuilt as a Hispanic city. Imagine how different the Canadian situation would be if the populations of, say, Vancouver and Calgary were each 30% or 40% French speaking. In short, even as Southern California becomes, increasing, a Spanish speaking region, it won’t be isolated from the rest of the country. The changes and challenges that the US faces and will continue to face as its Hispanic population grows certainly are significant. But it seems unlikely that they will be much like those in Canada. I’ll leave speculating on what the change will be for another time but expect new and exciting cultural formations, unlike ones we have seen before.
For more information on Latinos see this study http://www.brook.edu/es/urban/census/citygrowth.htm
Sunday, September 11, 2005
Forex Sept 11, 2005
Consumer sentiment and retail sales numbers will not be as far down as might be expected, strengthening the dollar. Giving to Katrina victims and back to school purchasing will fuel steady to good numbers. Long term, these positives are likely to result in an underestimation of the effects of Katrina. Without Bush telling consumers to buy and without the defiant attitude that was key to continued consumer spending following 9/11, retail sales are likely to slow during the fall. Expect gradual erosion in consumer confidence once the natural we-will-bounce-back knee-jerk reaction to Katrina wears off. As for monetary policy, current expectations of continued rate increases by the Fed are likely correct. The inflationary pressure of Katrina related spending and higher oil prices gradually spreading through the economy will encourage Fed increases. In addition, it must be remembered that Greenspan considers the Fed’s primary role to be inflation prevention not maintaining economic growth. As he prepares to leave office he will feel compelled to continue raising rates, realizing that if he stops raising rates his replacement will be in a difficult position where he (or she?) would face political pressure against renewed rate increases.
Monday, September 05, 2005
You’re not an American because I say so!
In a New York Times article on bilingual libraries a spokesman for Representative Tom Tancredo, Republican of Colorado offer up this, "When you have a strong cultural identity and there aren't set incentives to become American, it creates a lot of tension and divides the community.” He is arguing against the creation of libraries that have extensive collections in Spanish that serve growing Hispanic populations. So many things wrong with the premise here I don’t know where to start. First off most Spanish speakers in the US in fact are already American citizens, that is to say Americans. Then the issue of having a strong cultural identity as being bad? Better tell those Italians to cancel their Columbus day parades. While we’re at it we better get ride of St. Patrick’s. In fat we should just have everyone forget where ever they came from so they can be true Americans. Last but not least the idea that having libraries offer Spanish language books will lead to tension and division is just too ridiculous. In a word with racists and religious fundamentalists he is worried about books causing tension and division.
Check out the article: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/05/national/05library.htmlVisit the Congressman’s website at http://www.tancredo.org
Friday, August 26, 2005
Acropolis
Three questions: why are we here visiting the Acropolis? Why are the masses of tourists here visiting the Acropolis? What could we take away from the visit?
We are here, my wife and I, for our honeymoon. My wife particularly wanted to come to Greece, a long held desire that she can’t specifically explain. We are in Greece because it has both beaches and cultural activities. We are here because it is August and Greece is a place people go in August, a place people go for their honeymoon. We are at the Acropolis because when you are in Athens you must go. We spent on day in Athens before heading to the islands for two weeks. That one jetlagged, exhausted day we walked a bit from our hotel in the Plaka. The Acropolis truly dominates the city. You see it everywhere, unexpectedly when you turn around, when you look up from your map. Don Delillo in The Names:
The answer to the question, why we are here, why any tourist visits the Acropolis, perhaps is that you must go. It is unavoidable. Surely Pericles and the other ancient designers knew the power of the location they chose, its ability to command attention. For us moderns, it is of course unavoidable in another way. The Acropolis is a cultural monument engrained in the popular imagination. My wife and I, like everyone else, are here in part to take the requisite photos: asking an Italian couple to take our picture, smiling, shoulder to shoulder, arms around each other’s waists, one picture in front of the Parthenon, another in front of the [echaralon] statues of Athena, take it twice, the second time with our sunglasses off so our children some day will be able to see our eyes, offering to take a picture of the sunburned British couple.
We are here also for knowledge. That is part of what we are expected to take away from this site. To know what these ancient people did, how they lived, how they thought. To understand ourselves by learning about what is called the birthplace of western civilization. It is almost Freudian: we search for meaning among the ruins of our cultural parents, these Greeks that have created so much of our lives in art and politics, architecture and government. We can praise them, blame them too if we choose.
The Acropolis is not only a monument to the ancients, it is a monument to ourselves, to us modern people. The signs explaining the renovations that are being undertaken remind us of this. The scaffolding and the cranes, work that was supposed to be finished last summer for the Olympics. Signs explain the work being undertaken, the work the that has been recently completed. They explain how each building was discovered, renovated, restored by the British or the French archeologists in the beginning nineteenth or early twentieth century. The signs explain how those efforts were incomplete or flawed. How the metal rods they used are now oxidizing. These signs remind us of our own power, our ability to recover the past. This is our knowledge, the knowledge of the past. It affirms our technological prowess. The Parthenon was built nominally as a religious shrine but of the many buildings on the Acropolis it never was particularly important for its religious significance. Its power was the secular wonder of money, power, and art. It demonstrated the power of Attica, the ability of the prosperous city state to create and control wealth and beauty. Today it is not so different for us. It is our wealth, our powers of our invention that have been put on display. We now use it as a temple a monument to what our knowledge, the knowledge that we posses the control we therefore have over history, that we are able to know this building, we are able to recreated, improve the imperfections of early generations. We are able to master the ancients. We are able to supercede them, for we are able to restore what they created, we can do what they did, joining their powers to our own.
What else is taken away from the visit? The memory of the hot August sun beating down on the smooth rock, the swarms of tourists, the memory of the buildings. In five years I won’t remember much of the visit. My memory of the Acropolis, the one I want to hold on to, will be looking down a street, the rows of apartment buildings on either side, then above the traffic will be the Parthenon sitting, looking back indifferently from beyond time, looking down on the, on me.
Three questions: why are we here visiting the Acropolis? Why are the masses of tourists here visiting the Acropolis? What could we take away from the visit?
We are here, my wife and I, for our honeymoon. My wife particularly wanted to come to Greece, a long held desire that she can’t specifically explain. We are in Greece because it has both beaches and cultural activities. We are here because it is August and Greece is a place people go in August, a place people go for their honeymoon. We are at the Acropolis because when you are in Athens you must go. We spent on day in Athens before heading to the islands for two weeks. That one jetlagged, exhausted day we walked a bit from our hotel in the Plaka. The Acropolis truly dominates the city. You see it everywhere, unexpectedly when you turn around, when you look up from your map. Don Delillo in The Names:
For a long time I stayed away from the Acropolis. It daunted me, that somber rock. I preferred to wander in the modern city, imperfect, blaring. The weight and moment of those worked stones promised to make the business of seeing them a complicated one. So much converges there. It’s what we’ve rescued from the madness. Beauty, dignity, order, proportion. There are obligations attached to
such a visit. Then there was the question of its renown. I saw myself climbing the rough streets of the Plaka, past the discos, the handbag shops, the rows of bamboo chairs. Slowly, out of every bending lane, in waves of color and sound, came tourists in striped sneakers, fanning themselves with postcards, the philhellenes, laboring uphill, vastly unhappy, mingling in one unbroken line up to the monumental gateway. What ambiguity there is in exalted things. We despise them a little.
The answer to the question, why we are here, why any tourist visits the Acropolis, perhaps is that you must go. It is unavoidable. Surely Pericles and the other ancient designers knew the power of the location they chose, its ability to command attention. For us moderns, it is of course unavoidable in another way. The Acropolis is a cultural monument engrained in the popular imagination. My wife and I, like everyone else, are here in part to take the requisite photos: asking an Italian couple to take our picture, smiling, shoulder to shoulder, arms around each other’s waists, one picture in front of the Parthenon, another in front of the [echaralon] statues of Athena, take it twice, the second time with our sunglasses off so our children some day will be able to see our eyes, offering to take a picture of the sunburned British couple.
We are here also for knowledge. That is part of what we are expected to take away from this site. To know what these ancient people did, how they lived, how they thought. To understand ourselves by learning about what is called the birthplace of western civilization. It is almost Freudian: we search for meaning among the ruins of our cultural parents, these Greeks that have created so much of our lives in art and politics, architecture and government. We can praise them, blame them too if we choose.
The Acropolis is not only a monument to the ancients, it is a monument to ourselves, to us modern people. The signs explaining the renovations that are being undertaken remind us of this. The scaffolding and the cranes, work that was supposed to be finished last summer for the Olympics. Signs explain the work being undertaken, the work the that has been recently completed. They explain how each building was discovered, renovated, restored by the British or the French archeologists in the beginning nineteenth or early twentieth century. The signs explain how those efforts were incomplete or flawed. How the metal rods they used are now oxidizing. These signs remind us of our own power, our ability to recover the past. This is our knowledge, the knowledge of the past. It affirms our technological prowess. The Parthenon was built nominally as a religious shrine but of the many buildings on the Acropolis it never was particularly important for its religious significance. Its power was the secular wonder of money, power, and art. It demonstrated the power of Attica, the ability of the prosperous city state to create and control wealth and beauty. Today it is not so different for us. It is our wealth, our powers of our invention that have been put on display. We now use it as a temple a monument to what our knowledge, the knowledge that we posses the control we therefore have over history, that we are able to know this building, we are able to recreated, improve the imperfections of early generations. We are able to master the ancients. We are able to supercede them, for we are able to restore what they created, we can do what they did, joining their powers to our own.
What else is taken away from the visit? The memory of the hot August sun beating down on the smooth rock, the swarms of tourists, the memory of the buildings. In five years I won’t remember much of the visit. My memory of the Acropolis, the one I want to hold on to, will be looking down a street, the rows of apartment buildings on either side, then above the traffic will be the Parthenon sitting, looking back indifferently from beyond time, looking down on the, on me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)