I know, this is old, and it's just a link... but it's hilarious. I can't help myself.
In June of last year, IDF chief of staff Moshe Ya'alon completed his three year tenure, and was retiring. As a sendoff, the IDF High Command made a little tribute. Singing. A song they made up.
It's kind of scary, kind of funny...
Give it a look.
(If you don't know Hebrew, you might enjoy this anyways... but you won't understand a lick of what they're saying.)
23.5.06
Does anyone sane really doubt it?
I swore I wouldn't beat this topic to death, but I can't help myself.
For those of you who frequently read CNN, I'm sure this will come as no surprise.
In recent weeks, tensions between the Hamas-led Palestinian government and the Palestinian security apparatus (mostly run by followers of Fatah, the ousted party) have been slowly escalating. At least in the Gaza Strip, it seems rather likely that a full-scale civil war will erupt. What amused me, though, was CNN's reporting on the issue. At the end of the article detailing yet another confrontation between police (Fatah) and Hamas' new pseudo-legal security force, CNN said:
CNN always tacks this on to articles about Hamas. It's like they just have to tell us that an organization that has murdered several hundred civilians and is fighting its own police force isn't completely bad, so it's all right. They also always mention that Israel and the US 'consider' them a terrorist organization; technically true, but neglecting that the rest of the Western world agrees with the US and Israel. Do we need to say that Al Qaeda is 'considered' a terrorist organization? *shrugs* Okay, fine, that's CNN's shtick.
Now here's what gets me. The reasons why Hamas has gotten more legitimacy in the world are threefold:
1) Social welfare programs in Gaza
2) Popular election to run the PA
3) A cease fire with Israel
Do I need to bother to address the first? So what if they give some charity on the side? It might explain their popularity, but that hardly absolves them from being terrorists. (For those who would like to argue that the social and military arms of Hamas are entirely separate, there are a whole host of proofs that you're wrong. I won't belabor the point here; google should help you.) CNN's silly for bringing this point up time and time again.
Okay, but what about the second? If they run the Palestinian government, doesn't that give their military operations an aura of legitimacy? After all, some definitions of terrorism include that it must be carried out by non-state actors. Otherwise, it's just a 'war crime' or somesuch.
Firstly, not all definitions agree. As Hamas still intentionally targets civilians, one could argue that it's a terrorist government. Additionally, one could quite reasonable argue that the PA is not a state actor... it's certainly not sovereign. Lastly, most of the Hamas military wing is not yet part of the Palestinian government's security apparatus, making its military operations fit the definition of terrorism regardless.
...which brings us to the last reason one might not consider Hamas a terrorist organization: the 'cease fire'. Now, neglecting whether this cease fire has held (it has not), I bring the latest ridiculousness to your attention. As you well know, Israeli towns near the Gaza Strip (particularly Sderot and Ashkelon) have been experiencing high levels of rocket fire on a daily basis. Most of these attacks are orchestrated by the Popular Resistance Committees, an umbrella Palestinian terror group.
The founder of the PRC is now the head of Hamas' new security force.
So, let me get this straight: Hamas is following a cease fire by putting their security force under the authority of the man who's in charge of daily attacks against Israeli civilians?
*shakes head* I just don't understand it.
And now Ha'aretz reports that Hamas is so 'moderate' that they are willing to indefinitely extend their cease fire with Israel if Israel pulls back to the 1967 armistice lines. Note that this makes no mention of peace or joint recognition, or much of anything. Just an extended cease fire, to give them time to rearm for the next push.
For those of you who frequently read CNN, I'm sure this will come as no surprise.
In recent weeks, tensions between the Hamas-led Palestinian government and the Palestinian security apparatus (mostly run by followers of Fatah, the ousted party) have been slowly escalating. At least in the Gaza Strip, it seems rather likely that a full-scale civil war will erupt. What amused me, though, was CNN's reporting on the issue. At the end of the article detailing yet another confrontation between police (Fatah) and Hamas' new pseudo-legal security force, CNN said:
Israel and the U.S. State Department consider Hamas a terrorist organization, though it also operates an extensive social services network in the Palestinian territories.
CNN always tacks this on to articles about Hamas. It's like they just have to tell us that an organization that has murdered several hundred civilians and is fighting its own police force isn't completely bad, so it's all right. They also always mention that Israel and the US 'consider' them a terrorist organization; technically true, but neglecting that the rest of the Western world agrees with the US and Israel. Do we need to say that Al Qaeda is 'considered' a terrorist organization? *shrugs* Okay, fine, that's CNN's shtick.
Now here's what gets me. The reasons why Hamas has gotten more legitimacy in the world are threefold:
1) Social welfare programs in Gaza
2) Popular election to run the PA
3) A cease fire with Israel
Do I need to bother to address the first? So what if they give some charity on the side? It might explain their popularity, but that hardly absolves them from being terrorists. (For those who would like to argue that the social and military arms of Hamas are entirely separate, there are a whole host of proofs that you're wrong. I won't belabor the point here; google should help you.) CNN's silly for bringing this point up time and time again.
Okay, but what about the second? If they run the Palestinian government, doesn't that give their military operations an aura of legitimacy? After all, some definitions of terrorism include that it must be carried out by non-state actors. Otherwise, it's just a 'war crime' or somesuch.
Firstly, not all definitions agree. As Hamas still intentionally targets civilians, one could argue that it's a terrorist government. Additionally, one could quite reasonable argue that the PA is not a state actor... it's certainly not sovereign. Lastly, most of the Hamas military wing is not yet part of the Palestinian government's security apparatus, making its military operations fit the definition of terrorism regardless.
...which brings us to the last reason one might not consider Hamas a terrorist organization: the 'cease fire'. Now, neglecting whether this cease fire has held (it has not), I bring the latest ridiculousness to your attention. As you well know, Israeli towns near the Gaza Strip (particularly Sderot and Ashkelon) have been experiencing high levels of rocket fire on a daily basis. Most of these attacks are orchestrated by the Popular Resistance Committees, an umbrella Palestinian terror group.
The founder of the PRC is now the head of Hamas' new security force.
So, let me get this straight: Hamas is following a cease fire by putting their security force under the authority of the man who's in charge of daily attacks against Israeli civilians?
*shakes head* I just don't understand it.
And now Ha'aretz reports that Hamas is so 'moderate' that they are willing to indefinitely extend their cease fire with Israel if Israel pulls back to the 1967 armistice lines. Note that this makes no mention of peace or joint recognition, or much of anything. Just an extended cease fire, to give them time to rearm for the next push.
19.5.06
Tikkun l'korim recommendations?
Note: Those of my readers who don't know what I'm talking about, don't worry; you're not supposed to. If you're really curious, toss me an IM or email or whatever, and I'll explain.
To the rest of you:
I've recently been looking for a top-notch Tikkun to replace my aging and inaccurate one (an old black one from Ktav Publishing that used to be my father's). Much as the old one has a lot of sentimental value, I've found myself increasingly annoyed with its inaccuracy in nikud and trope, not to mention somewhat shoddy typesetting.
So, for any of you who know (or who have leiner friends who would know), I am looking for a Tikkun with the following attributes:
1) Accuracy. Preferably, the text should be based on the Keter Aram Tzova directly (and not on some later mikraot gedolot printing; many of those were prone to errors that have been propagated in later printings). Obviously, this isn't possible for a good chunk of the text, but I'd like all of the text to be accurate to the most authoritative text for each part. (For those of you who are about to recommend the Koren text, please think again. There are multiple Tanachim that disagree with the Koren text on a few points. I personally would bet that R' Mordechai Breuer's Tanach is probably the best text; however, I have not been able to find a tikkun that claims to use this text. Also, I'm not a big fan of the 'Keter Yerushalayim' formatting. If you can convincingly prove to me that Koren (or Adi, or whatever) is a better version, then I'll consider it.)
2) Vavei Haamudim - I'd like the pages to be aligned like the 'classic' column alignments that are found on many of the scrolls... not an absolute requirement, but I'd like it.
3) It must have not only parshiot and haftarot, but also all five megillot.
4) It might be nice (but NOT required) for a short section on nikud rules, rules of k'riat hatorah and aliyot, etc. Nikud is probably the most important.
5) I'd like to have it have a difference between kamatz katan/gadol... I know the rules, but sometimes it's good to have corroborating evidence on tricky cases.
6) If each line could mirror on both sides of the tikkun, that would be great (ie, every word is at the same line, and same PART of the line on both sides).
...if I think of any more criteria, I'll post them. Cost is no object.
While I'm at it, if any of you have come across a good technical text on leyning (things like differences between conjunctive and disjunctive te'amim, and the rules of when one note becomes another), along with a good refresher on really esoteric bits of nikud in Tanach... I would be deeply indebted to you for a reference. I'd prefer if it were in English, but I can bull my way through the Hebrew, if necessary.
Thanks!
To the rest of you:
I've recently been looking for a top-notch Tikkun to replace my aging and inaccurate one (an old black one from Ktav Publishing that used to be my father's). Much as the old one has a lot of sentimental value, I've found myself increasingly annoyed with its inaccuracy in nikud and trope, not to mention somewhat shoddy typesetting.
So, for any of you who know (or who have leiner friends who would know), I am looking for a Tikkun with the following attributes:
1) Accuracy. Preferably, the text should be based on the Keter Aram Tzova directly (and not on some later mikraot gedolot printing; many of those were prone to errors that have been propagated in later printings). Obviously, this isn't possible for a good chunk of the text, but I'd like all of the text to be accurate to the most authoritative text for each part. (For those of you who are about to recommend the Koren text, please think again. There are multiple Tanachim that disagree with the Koren text on a few points. I personally would bet that R' Mordechai Breuer's Tanach is probably the best text; however, I have not been able to find a tikkun that claims to use this text. Also, I'm not a big fan of the 'Keter Yerushalayim' formatting. If you can convincingly prove to me that Koren (or Adi, or whatever) is a better version, then I'll consider it.)
2) Vavei Haamudim - I'd like the pages to be aligned like the 'classic' column alignments that are found on many of the scrolls... not an absolute requirement, but I'd like it.
3) It must have not only parshiot and haftarot, but also all five megillot.
4) It might be nice (but NOT required) for a short section on nikud rules, rules of k'riat hatorah and aliyot, etc. Nikud is probably the most important.
5) I'd like to have it have a difference between kamatz katan/gadol... I know the rules, but sometimes it's good to have corroborating evidence on tricky cases.
6) If each line could mirror on both sides of the tikkun, that would be great (ie, every word is at the same line, and same PART of the line on both sides).
...if I think of any more criteria, I'll post them. Cost is no object.
While I'm at it, if any of you have come across a good technical text on leyning (things like differences between conjunctive and disjunctive te'amim, and the rules of when one note becomes another), along with a good refresher on really esoteric bits of nikud in Tanach... I would be deeply indebted to you for a reference. I'd prefer if it were in English, but I can bull my way through the Hebrew, if necessary.
Thanks!
18.5.06
A good job?
Much of the criticism against the US government's involvement in Iraq (and the rapidly deteriorating situation there) has drawn an implicit - and sometimes explicit - difference between our war in Iraq, and the widely-supported 'regime change' in Afghanistan. Most people believe it was a reasonable response to a direct threat to American national security, and that the war was carried out in a careful manner, leading to eventual success in toppling a regime and installing a democracy.
I would like to quote from the US State Department's travel advisory to Afghanistan as of January 9:
Oho! Sounds like the job isn't finished. But at least the US military force is maintaining order and safety for most of the country, right?
Hmm. Okay, fair, they're fighting a war. It's bound to have things like landmines and such. But at least American military operations are protecting foreign (and American) citizens... at least in Kabul?
Okay, okay, but at least it's not getting worse?
Oops.
I would like to quote from the US State Department's travel advisory to Afghanistan as of January 9:
The ability of Afghan authorities to maintain order and ensure the security of citizens and visitors is limited. Remnants of the former Taliban regime and the terrorist al-Qaida network, and other groups hostile to the government, remain active.
Oho! Sounds like the job isn't finished. But at least the US military force is maintaining order and safety for most of the country, right?
U.S.-led military operations continue. Travel in all areas of Afghanistan, including the capital Kabul, is unsafe due to military operations, landmines, banditry, armed rivalry among political and tribal groups, and the possibility of terrorist attacks, including attacks using vehicular or other Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs), and kidnapping. The security environment remains volatile and unpredictable.
Hmm. Okay, fair, they're fighting a war. It's bound to have things like landmines and such. But at least American military operations are protecting foreign (and American) citizens... at least in Kabul?
Attacks on international organizations, international aid workers, and foreign interests have continued throughout the year. Foreigners in Kabul and elsewhere throughout the country were targeted for violent attacks and kidnappings.
Okay, okay, but at least it's not getting worse?
Improvised explosive device (IED) and particularly, vehicle borne improvised explosive device (VBIED) attacks, are on the rise.
Oops.
4.4.06
Special Effects
Just a quick thought I wanted to jot off before I forgot:
We spend so much time complaining about special effects in movies, and how they could be better/cooler, whatever. (I know, 'we' is a somwhat small sampling of the population, but work with me here.)
Why?
I haven't figured out an answer to that yet; it seems to me that if a movie's story/acting/directing/etc. is good, it doesn't matter if the effects are piss-poor. Conversely, a crappy movie won't be saved by slick effects.
An interesting corollary I realized: we spend lots of time wishing effects were more 'realistic'. Why should we look for good simulations of real effects? We've got pretty damn cool special effects in nature and real life, anyways.
Have you ever just stopped and looked around you? Really looked. There is amazement and beauty and genius all around us, and in far more convincing form that 'special' effects.
We spend so much time complaining about special effects in movies, and how they could be better/cooler, whatever. (I know, 'we' is a somwhat small sampling of the population, but work with me here.)
Why?
I haven't figured out an answer to that yet; it seems to me that if a movie's story/acting/directing/etc. is good, it doesn't matter if the effects are piss-poor. Conversely, a crappy movie won't be saved by slick effects.
An interesting corollary I realized: we spend lots of time wishing effects were more 'realistic'. Why should we look for good simulations of real effects? We've got pretty damn cool special effects in nature and real life, anyways.
Have you ever just stopped and looked around you? Really looked. There is amazement and beauty and genius all around us, and in far more convincing form that 'special' effects.
2.4.06
Tom's Diner
Due to certain extenuating circumstances, I recently began setting my alarm to 'radio' instead of 'alarm' to wake me up. The only problem is that I need to find a station that is sufficiently annoying to wake me up, yet not so annoying that I'll destroy my alarm clock in a fit of rage at being woken up to, say, Mahler, or Eminem. I've settled on a station that's mostly talk in the morning, interspersed with the inevitable commercials and some generic current pop music. It's obnoxious, but hey, I'm not really awake when I'm listening to it, so it's all right.
All of this is a preface to my experience this morning. Sunday mornings, there isn't much talk, but rather a bunch of 'older' pop songs from a few decades ago. What woke me up today was 'Tom's Diner', a pseudo-a capella piece by Suzanne Vega (this version as a remix with DNA). I'm sure you've all heard it before, and on the surface it's a simplistic song. But something in my sleepy morning haze latched on to the song, and it took me a while to figure out why.
Sure, the beat and refrain is a bit hypnotic (to me after 5 hours of sleep, that is), but so are a lot of other popular songs. I think it is more than that, so I listened to it a few more times, and have come to my Genius Music Critic (TM) conclusions.
First, the sense of timing in the piece is superb. If you've ever heard the plain a capella version of Vega's, the pauses are exactly the correct length. I can't tell you the number of times I've cringed upon hearing sloppy 'rests' in recent music. Silence in a piece can speak even more than the music itself; I know this all too well, from years of slaving over piano pieces that required extraordinary precision.
Have you ever heard a really complex rhythm in something like a rag or jazz piece? With some careful listening, you'll realize that although the 'cadence' (to misuse a musical term) and exact phrasing are important for bringing out the rhythm, it's the precise locations of where you don't hear music that really defines the piece.
Anyhow, this piece did that exquisitely well, although the original a capella version brings it out much more obviously. If you listen near the end of the DNA remix, though, at the 'bells of the cathedral' line, they also show a sensitivity to the timing with some clever splicing of the 'bell' sound into the song.
Secondly, I noticed that Vega has a real gift in her lyrical structure. I mean, the lyrics themselves are pretty cool: a sort of 'detached', almost haunting look through someone's eyes. However, the structure of these lyrics was brilliant. Each phrase fit into the song just so, with the precisely best syllables being stressed/elongated, and a certain 'flow' that many songs lack. That's what keeps the listener moving with the song.
I have no clue whether these strengths are present in her other songs, nor do I really care. I just enjoyed being woken up to something that wasn't the same old three chords being played inexpertly on guitars with a generic drum beat and poorly written lyrics. (Not to say I don't own plenty of this sort of music, of course.)
I can't guarantee the GMC (TM) side of me will manifest here again, but it's just an interesting song.
All of this is a preface to my experience this morning. Sunday mornings, there isn't much talk, but rather a bunch of 'older' pop songs from a few decades ago. What woke me up today was 'Tom's Diner', a pseudo-a capella piece by Suzanne Vega (this version as a remix with DNA). I'm sure you've all heard it before, and on the surface it's a simplistic song. But something in my sleepy morning haze latched on to the song, and it took me a while to figure out why.
Sure, the beat and refrain is a bit hypnotic (to me after 5 hours of sleep, that is), but so are a lot of other popular songs. I think it is more than that, so I listened to it a few more times, and have come to my Genius Music Critic (TM) conclusions.
First, the sense of timing in the piece is superb. If you've ever heard the plain a capella version of Vega's, the pauses are exactly the correct length. I can't tell you the number of times I've cringed upon hearing sloppy 'rests' in recent music. Silence in a piece can speak even more than the music itself; I know this all too well, from years of slaving over piano pieces that required extraordinary precision.
Have you ever heard a really complex rhythm in something like a rag or jazz piece? With some careful listening, you'll realize that although the 'cadence' (to misuse a musical term) and exact phrasing are important for bringing out the rhythm, it's the precise locations of where you don't hear music that really defines the piece.
Anyhow, this piece did that exquisitely well, although the original a capella version brings it out much more obviously. If you listen near the end of the DNA remix, though, at the 'bells of the cathedral' line, they also show a sensitivity to the timing with some clever splicing of the 'bell' sound into the song.
Secondly, I noticed that Vega has a real gift in her lyrical structure. I mean, the lyrics themselves are pretty cool: a sort of 'detached', almost haunting look through someone's eyes. However, the structure of these lyrics was brilliant. Each phrase fit into the song just so, with the precisely best syllables being stressed/elongated, and a certain 'flow' that many songs lack. That's what keeps the listener moving with the song.
I have no clue whether these strengths are present in her other songs, nor do I really care. I just enjoyed being woken up to something that wasn't the same old three chords being played inexpertly on guitars with a generic drum beat and poorly written lyrics. (Not to say I don't own plenty of this sort of music, of course.)
I can't guarantee the GMC (TM) side of me will manifest here again, but it's just an interesting song.
16.3.06
I wonder
Am I the only person who has no idea whatsoever of what happens at the end of 'The Cat Who Walks Through Walls'?
16.2.06
Not listening, not listening!
Is there some built-in reflex in humans that keeps us paying attention to things we should be ignoring? I think there is.
Case in point: For my undergraduate degree, I went to Northwestern University, getting a degree in engineering. Along the way, I ended up taking an ECE class by the infamous Arthur Butz, an electrical engineering professor who is famous for his outspoken Holocaust denial (Northwestern has not fired him as he has tenure, and his views on history have nothing to do with his position in a EE faculty). I obviously hate the man's guts, but he was teaching the lab of a very introductory ECE class that a large number of engineering students need to take (I needed the class as a prerequisite for nearly any further ECE coursework, including my circuit analysis class), so I had no choice. Fortunately, Butz didn't bring up his views in class, and I do not know of any ideology-guided grading (I received an A, certainly, though the lab grade was a tiny portion of the overall course).
Before the course, I figured I should know a bit about this man, so I looked up some information, reading his website, and biographies from both the crazy neo-Nazi right and the rest of the world. I was disgusted, infuriated, and contemptuous of Butz's arguments and those of the people and organizations he supports (it's a thin veneer for blatant anti-Semitism; if you don't believe me, read his work), but I figured that he can believe what he wishes, neh? (His views and the views of others like him have been thoroughly addressed by a number of eminent historical scholars, and pretty much every history PhD in five countries think that he's wrong.) I pretty much ignored the guy, and got through the class just fine.
In later years at NU, I ended up taking two excellent courses from an eminent Holocaust historian, Peter Francis Hayes. He taught 'Modern German History: 1918-1945' and 'History of the Holocaust', the two best non-engineering classes I took in college, period. He's an amazing lecturer, giving students bucketloads of reading (with a heavy emphasis on primary sources) and posing extremely thought-provoking discussion and essay questions. I was curious, though, to hear of his thoughts on Dr. Butz, another professor at his own institution spewing such nonsense. Dr. Hayes' views (permit me to paraphrase with a great amount of license) are that Dr. Butz makes a big splash in the news every few years with a new anti-Holocaust comment to draw attention to his 'historical work', but that he's just a crackpot that the entirety of the historical academic community rejects. The overwhelming evidence for the Holocaust - from German records to thousands of firsthand accounts - should be incontrovertible to someone without a prior agenda.
So, why do I bring this all up? In recent weeks, the Northwestern campus has been in an uproar over comments made by Butz to the Chicago Sun-Times along the lines of 'the Iranian president is right' about the Holocaust. (For those of you who haven't followed things lately, the new radical Iranian president has made any number of statements in recent months calling the Holocaust a 'myth' and further calling for the destruction of Israel.) Calls for Butz's firing were renewed, letters and ads went to the campus newspaper decrying him, etc. *yawn*
Events have recently heated up as university president Henry Bienen sent an email to the entire university explaining why they won't fire him, but calling his views essentially racist bullshit that the school does not support (he said it a bit nicer, but not much). His email was met alternatively with praise or a storm of criticism from both sides (some saying he should go further and fire the guy as he is a representative of NU, others saying that Bienen went too far in his harsh assessments of Butz's views). This eventually culminated in the Daily soliciting Butz to write one column in the Op/Ed section detailing his views. By then, even the ADL decided to complain (surprised?).
What I don't get is why people make such a big deal of this every few years. Butz's famous book was published in 1976, and every few years something identical happens. What is the purpose of this uproar except to draw attention to his views? Everyone knows that the guy is simply wrong - entire departments (including Butz's own) have signed letters and advertisements saying they think the guy is a bigoted nut. So making a big deal over one more comment is just playing into his hands, no? And yet people continue to make a big deal about it... *shakes head* It seems so silly.
The online version of the Daily has a space for online comments on Op/Ed articles. Unsurprisingly, Butz's column garnered an appreciable 30-some responses (and dozens or hundreds of letters directly to the Daily; I don't know how many, but it's a lot). What's kind of scary/funny is that the majority of the comments are from compatriot Holocaust deniers who were drawn to the article by the controversy - they're given a free forum and a captive audience to promulgate their views (always under the guises of 'intellectual honesty' or some similar nonsense). Isn't this precisely the opposite of how we should treat this situation? If no one had bothered to notice when Butz made his Iran comment, he and his cronies would have stayed in obscurity where they belong.
The only possible plus I can see is that Butz and his ilk show their true idiocy when their views are openly published. Butz's arguments, though on the surface plausible, fall apart under any sort of scrutiny. The comments on the online article are even more revealing - many are clearly from reflexive anti-Semites, and even the 'well meaning' and 'reasoned' ones leave a reader rather unimpressed... but is this worth it? We didn't believe these people to start with, so it's not like we need to be convinced they're nuts.
So... yeah. Moral of the story? Ignore idiots; they will go away in time.
Case in point: For my undergraduate degree, I went to Northwestern University, getting a degree in engineering. Along the way, I ended up taking an ECE class by the infamous Arthur Butz, an electrical engineering professor who is famous for his outspoken Holocaust denial (Northwestern has not fired him as he has tenure, and his views on history have nothing to do with his position in a EE faculty). I obviously hate the man's guts, but he was teaching the lab of a very introductory ECE class that a large number of engineering students need to take (I needed the class as a prerequisite for nearly any further ECE coursework, including my circuit analysis class), so I had no choice. Fortunately, Butz didn't bring up his views in class, and I do not know of any ideology-guided grading (I received an A, certainly, though the lab grade was a tiny portion of the overall course).
Before the course, I figured I should know a bit about this man, so I looked up some information, reading his website, and biographies from both the crazy neo-Nazi right and the rest of the world. I was disgusted, infuriated, and contemptuous of Butz's arguments and those of the people and organizations he supports (it's a thin veneer for blatant anti-Semitism; if you don't believe me, read his work), but I figured that he can believe what he wishes, neh? (His views and the views of others like him have been thoroughly addressed by a number of eminent historical scholars, and pretty much every history PhD in five countries think that he's wrong.) I pretty much ignored the guy, and got through the class just fine.
In later years at NU, I ended up taking two excellent courses from an eminent Holocaust historian, Peter Francis Hayes. He taught 'Modern German History: 1918-1945' and 'History of the Holocaust', the two best non-engineering classes I took in college, period. He's an amazing lecturer, giving students bucketloads of reading (with a heavy emphasis on primary sources) and posing extremely thought-provoking discussion and essay questions. I was curious, though, to hear of his thoughts on Dr. Butz, another professor at his own institution spewing such nonsense. Dr. Hayes' views (permit me to paraphrase with a great amount of license) are that Dr. Butz makes a big splash in the news every few years with a new anti-Holocaust comment to draw attention to his 'historical work', but that he's just a crackpot that the entirety of the historical academic community rejects. The overwhelming evidence for the Holocaust - from German records to thousands of firsthand accounts - should be incontrovertible to someone without a prior agenda.
So, why do I bring this all up? In recent weeks, the Northwestern campus has been in an uproar over comments made by Butz to the Chicago Sun-Times along the lines of 'the Iranian president is right' about the Holocaust. (For those of you who haven't followed things lately, the new radical Iranian president has made any number of statements in recent months calling the Holocaust a 'myth' and further calling for the destruction of Israel.) Calls for Butz's firing were renewed, letters and ads went to the campus newspaper decrying him, etc. *yawn*
Events have recently heated up as university president Henry Bienen sent an email to the entire university explaining why they won't fire him, but calling his views essentially racist bullshit that the school does not support (he said it a bit nicer, but not much). His email was met alternatively with praise or a storm of criticism from both sides (some saying he should go further and fire the guy as he is a representative of NU, others saying that Bienen went too far in his harsh assessments of Butz's views). This eventually culminated in the Daily soliciting Butz to write one column in the Op/Ed section detailing his views. By then, even the ADL decided to complain (surprised?).
What I don't get is why people make such a big deal of this every few years. Butz's famous book was published in 1976, and every few years something identical happens. What is the purpose of this uproar except to draw attention to his views? Everyone knows that the guy is simply wrong - entire departments (including Butz's own) have signed letters and advertisements saying they think the guy is a bigoted nut. So making a big deal over one more comment is just playing into his hands, no? And yet people continue to make a big deal about it... *shakes head* It seems so silly.
The online version of the Daily has a space for online comments on Op/Ed articles. Unsurprisingly, Butz's column garnered an appreciable 30-some responses (and dozens or hundreds of letters directly to the Daily; I don't know how many, but it's a lot). What's kind of scary/funny is that the majority of the comments are from compatriot Holocaust deniers who were drawn to the article by the controversy - they're given a free forum and a captive audience to promulgate their views (always under the guises of 'intellectual honesty' or some similar nonsense). Isn't this precisely the opposite of how we should treat this situation? If no one had bothered to notice when Butz made his Iran comment, he and his cronies would have stayed in obscurity where they belong.
The only possible plus I can see is that Butz and his ilk show their true idiocy when their views are openly published. Butz's arguments, though on the surface plausible, fall apart under any sort of scrutiny. The comments on the online article are even more revealing - many are clearly from reflexive anti-Semites, and even the 'well meaning' and 'reasoned' ones leave a reader rather unimpressed... but is this worth it? We didn't believe these people to start with, so it's not like we need to be convinced they're nuts.
So... yeah. Moral of the story? Ignore idiots; they will go away in time.
15.2.06
Open minded?
As is my wont upon finding a new blog to read, I've been working my way through the Treppenwitz archives over the last week or so. Tonight, I ran across a post that made me think (well, many of his posts do, but they don't necessarily jar loose an interesting thought in *my* head). Briefly, he was mentioning that his 'reading list' of other blogs/etc. on his links sidebar was much more diversified than his normal reading/interactions, lending him a much more balanced view of things... being surrounded by people just like you can be an intellectually dull experience, neh?
While his arguments are entirely correct, I found myself bothered by a nagging thought. (Before I go off on my tangent, this really is no reflection on treppenwitz, but rather on technological society as a whole. He just made me think about it. ;) ) Sure, the internet (and reading diverse blogs/etc. with it) provide for a much broader exposure to people and ideas... but is it really that broad? According to an unverified link I just googled, only about 800 million people have access to the internet, and roughly 2/3 of those speak European languages (the remainder use Mandarin or Japanese, mostly). The exact numbers don't really matter much, as I think you can all see where this is headed.
The internet has allowed me to interact extensively with people around the world. But being honest with myself, the list of countries of most of the people I interact with can be narrowed to the US, Canada, Europe, Anglo countries (NZ/Australia/etc.), and Israel. That's not really such a big spread, neh? I'll admit that Western countries tend to have a decent bit of diversity in them (a wide range of political/religious/ethnic/racial/etc. backgrounds), but this is still a depressingly limited subpopulation of the world. Thus, even for 'broad spectrum' people such as the aforementioned treppenwitz, our circle of knowledge and experience is sharply circumscribed.
What are the consequences of this? Some people would suggest it's a temporary blip in the internet phenomenon, as it becomes increasingly easy for anyone in the world to get online, but I am skeptical. Much of the world hasn't even seen a computer, let alone know how to navigate one (or know enough of one of the 'global' languages to find the internet useful or interesting). I think this is yet another example of the world's increasing segregation into technological 'haves' and 'have-nots'. We've seen some of this even in the US - children growing up in extreme poverty (by US standards, at least) are not obtaining the neccesary computer skills to get jobs of any substance, deeping the economic divide. (I should mention that the problem has been noted and people are trying to address it in Western countries, with mixed funding and results, but the problem exists.) Have you tried talking to anyone who hasn't grown up with IMing, email, and readingly accessible information? I use the internet for everything - keeping in touch with friends and family, planning events/travel/outings, directions, news, entertainment, education, employment... everything. (Let's ignore the generations in technological societies that precede my own generation - the principle is the same, just we'd have to talk about cars and phones and television instead. The internet is just a really good model.)
How much more can this problem be seen on the global scale? Billions of people are steadily falling behind the pace of industrialization. Many people have suggested that the third world will experience a 'quantum leap' of technology sometime soon, bring them into direct competition with more established industrial markets (e.g. the development of cell networks in countries that never had landlines), but I wonder if this will really happen.
Despite all of the recriminations and politicking involved in the media today, the 'developed' world really hangs together, and is in direct opposition to the 'undeveloped' countries. Europe, N. America, and a handful of Asian countries stand together on a number of important economic issues (G8 summits, anyone?), while they argue amongst themselves about matters that do not fundamentally change the balance of power in the world. We'd like to say we're post-colonial and that 'cultural imperialism' is just a way of bringing those underpriveleged regions into the global community, but is that really true?
Thus, the developed, technologically sophisticated, and overwhelmingly dominant world (typifying all of the internet's denizens) is talking to itself, and agreeing on most points. Sure there are bleeding liberals complaining about the third world (er... I guess I'm one of them?), while there are crazy conservatives trying to conquer/kill/subjugate them, but they are all fundamentally technologically sophisticated viewpoints (I'd hesitate to say 'Western'). If you could actually talk to a Bushman or a farmer in Bangladesh, what would they say? What would their take be on the world? I'd suspect it would have startling similarities to our own views, but would also reveal great conceptual divides.
How can this divide be bridged? I honestly don't know. The obvious solution is to spread the internet to the remotest corners of the world, and let globalization take place. Yet I am rather skeptical that this is going to occur in any reasonable period, given the complete lack of decent infrastructure investment in undeveloped countries. The internet has reached everywhere, but in many places it is used only by a priveleged technological caste that has little relationship to the rest of the country - really just postcolonial extensions of economic power.
Will the majority of the world continue to be ignored and relegated to a communication backwater? This could have disturbing ramifications for the future...
(A note: I'm not making any claims about the relative merits of cultures and ideas. Maybe I'll completely disagree with that Bangladeshi farmer's viewpoint. But without his input, he and his kind are completely excluded from the discourse of a global community that is increasingly making far-reaching decisions as a group.)
While his arguments are entirely correct, I found myself bothered by a nagging thought. (Before I go off on my tangent, this really is no reflection on treppenwitz, but rather on technological society as a whole. He just made me think about it. ;) ) Sure, the internet (and reading diverse blogs/etc. with it) provide for a much broader exposure to people and ideas... but is it really that broad? According to an unverified link I just googled, only about 800 million people have access to the internet, and roughly 2/3 of those speak European languages (the remainder use Mandarin or Japanese, mostly). The exact numbers don't really matter much, as I think you can all see where this is headed.
The internet has allowed me to interact extensively with people around the world. But being honest with myself, the list of countries of most of the people I interact with can be narrowed to the US, Canada, Europe, Anglo countries (NZ/Australia/etc.), and Israel. That's not really such a big spread, neh? I'll admit that Western countries tend to have a decent bit of diversity in them (a wide range of political/religious/ethnic/racial/etc. backgrounds), but this is still a depressingly limited subpopulation of the world. Thus, even for 'broad spectrum' people such as the aforementioned treppenwitz, our circle of knowledge and experience is sharply circumscribed.
What are the consequences of this? Some people would suggest it's a temporary blip in the internet phenomenon, as it becomes increasingly easy for anyone in the world to get online, but I am skeptical. Much of the world hasn't even seen a computer, let alone know how to navigate one (or know enough of one of the 'global' languages to find the internet useful or interesting). I think this is yet another example of the world's increasing segregation into technological 'haves' and 'have-nots'. We've seen some of this even in the US - children growing up in extreme poverty (by US standards, at least) are not obtaining the neccesary computer skills to get jobs of any substance, deeping the economic divide. (I should mention that the problem has been noted and people are trying to address it in Western countries, with mixed funding and results, but the problem exists.) Have you tried talking to anyone who hasn't grown up with IMing, email, and readingly accessible information? I use the internet for everything - keeping in touch with friends and family, planning events/travel/outings, directions, news, entertainment, education, employment... everything. (Let's ignore the generations in technological societies that precede my own generation - the principle is the same, just we'd have to talk about cars and phones and television instead. The internet is just a really good model.)
How much more can this problem be seen on the global scale? Billions of people are steadily falling behind the pace of industrialization. Many people have suggested that the third world will experience a 'quantum leap' of technology sometime soon, bring them into direct competition with more established industrial markets (e.g. the development of cell networks in countries that never had landlines), but I wonder if this will really happen.
Despite all of the recriminations and politicking involved in the media today, the 'developed' world really hangs together, and is in direct opposition to the 'undeveloped' countries. Europe, N. America, and a handful of Asian countries stand together on a number of important economic issues (G8 summits, anyone?), while they argue amongst themselves about matters that do not fundamentally change the balance of power in the world. We'd like to say we're post-colonial and that 'cultural imperialism' is just a way of bringing those underpriveleged regions into the global community, but is that really true?
Thus, the developed, technologically sophisticated, and overwhelmingly dominant world (typifying all of the internet's denizens) is talking to itself, and agreeing on most points. Sure there are bleeding liberals complaining about the third world (er... I guess I'm one of them?), while there are crazy conservatives trying to conquer/kill/subjugate them, but they are all fundamentally technologically sophisticated viewpoints (I'd hesitate to say 'Western'). If you could actually talk to a Bushman or a farmer in Bangladesh, what would they say? What would their take be on the world? I'd suspect it would have startling similarities to our own views, but would also reveal great conceptual divides.
How can this divide be bridged? I honestly don't know. The obvious solution is to spread the internet to the remotest corners of the world, and let globalization take place. Yet I am rather skeptical that this is going to occur in any reasonable period, given the complete lack of decent infrastructure investment in undeveloped countries. The internet has reached everywhere, but in many places it is used only by a priveleged technological caste that has little relationship to the rest of the country - really just postcolonial extensions of economic power.
Will the majority of the world continue to be ignored and relegated to a communication backwater? This could have disturbing ramifications for the future...
(A note: I'm not making any claims about the relative merits of cultures and ideas. Maybe I'll completely disagree with that Bangladeshi farmer's viewpoint. But without his input, he and his kind are completely excluded from the discourse of a global community that is increasingly making far-reaching decisions as a group.)
13.2.06
Words that sound funny
In recent conversations with a friend of mine in vet school we've both remarked that some anatomical terms are just fun to say, and sound pretty silly. I found it odd, but then realized that we're only noticing this because the terms are new ones to us, so we consciously notice the sounds we are making. Some of them were:
crista galli
ansa cervicalis
omohyoid
sacula
tunica flava
cricoid
abducent
zygomaticofacial
pronator teres
arytenoid
bulbospongiousus
falx cerebri (this is my favorite, personally)
I could go on (this is only anatomical terms! I haven't even TALKED about other biological terms...). But thinking about it, I realized that there are plenty of everyday words that sound funny, too, when stripped of their associations:
puke
bagel
cabal
intriguing
glue
spinnaker
grumble
weasel
...etc, etc. What's your favorite weird-sounding word? Though I started off in English, people are more than welcome to include other languages, eh?
Oh, and useful fact of the day: Cheez-it crackers, even after being left half-finished in a cabinet for at least three or four months, do not readily go stale. *munches away happily*
crista galli
ansa cervicalis
omohyoid
sacula
tunica flava
cricoid
abducent
zygomaticofacial
pronator teres
arytenoid
bulbospongiousus
falx cerebri (this is my favorite, personally)
I could go on (this is only anatomical terms! I haven't even TALKED about other biological terms...). But thinking about it, I realized that there are plenty of everyday words that sound funny, too, when stripped of their associations:
puke
bagel
cabal
intriguing
glue
spinnaker
grumble
weasel
...etc, etc. What's your favorite weird-sounding word? Though I started off in English, people are more than welcome to include other languages, eh?
Oh, and useful fact of the day: Cheez-it crackers, even after being left half-finished in a cabinet for at least three or four months, do not readily go stale. *munches away happily*
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)