bliumchik | Politics, schmolitics.

Some links re: Serious Things. (For once). I figured I'd get them all out of the way in one post. I don't normally comment on the worlds various fuck-ups, because I sort of feel like it's validating them, which is completely irrational but whatever. The fact is that I have absolutely no first hand information about any of it, and while I can judge whose word to accept it's still other people's opinions on topics that are not directly related to me. It just seems arrogant to talk like I know anything.

But these are some links which made me think, nevertheless, and in some way converge with my own views. The first and last have my Definitely Not Propaganda stamp, the middle one I'm not in a position to judge, but if it is propaganda it's Anti War propaganda, which I'm sort of okay with as long as you bear in mind the fact that they are trying to convince you of something.

Scott Adams, whose only claim to fame is a successful comic strip. I like him because he, like me, doesn't actually have any first hand contact with the issue, so he doesn't go around claiming that he must be absolutely right. He just presents ideas as per his own cynical worldview, and they're always obviously logical, so it's easy to analyse them and/or try to disprove them.

Also, he considers human nature more important than race and religion, which is something I agree with him on, and really helps with the whole lack of bias thing.

eg: during an argument for treating Iran like any other country and helping them out with stuff:
"5. In time, the growth of the Internet would infect Iran’s youth with ideas of democracy and freedom. We can sell them technology and wait a generation or two. They’ll turn into France."

Yitzhak Laor, because it seems logical that any condemnation of Israeli actions should come from an actual Israeli, does it not? I've always been somewhat sceptical of the self-defence argument, because Israel's espionage department is supposed to be quite good, and you never get quite so much collateral damage when you engage in some light sabotage instead of bombing the shit out of the place.

This is mostly about the control of the Israeli army over the Israeli media.
"In the melodramatic barrage fired off by the press, the army is assigned the dual role of hero and victim. And the enemy? In Hebrew broadcasts the formulations are always the same: on the one hand ‘we’, ‘ours’, ‘us’; on the other, Nasrallah and Hizbullah. There aren’t, it seems, any Lebanese in this war. So who is dying under Israeli fire? Hizbullah. And if we ask about the Lebanese? The answer is always that Israel has no quarrel with Lebanon."

Bruce Schneier, an excellent example of the camp I call Sensible in the War On Terror. A straightforward argument against making a fuss over terrorism, because it sort of inspires terror, and wait, what was it the terrorists are trying to do again? This article is my favourite. Does nobody remember the London bombings? That was the best response to an attack I've seen yet, and they seem to have forgotten all about it, just because this bit happened in the domain of Government Business, ie Not Mine.

"Our politicians help the terrorists every time they use fear as a campaign tactic. The press helps every time it writes scare stories about the plot and the threat. And if we're terrified, and we share that fear, we help. All of these actions intensify and repeat the terrorists' actions, and increase the effects of their terror."

I was all set to link to Ken Macleod's blog, too, because I think a pragmatic approach to warfare would be a step in the right direction (read: "war? Are you insane?") from the Noble Rules Of War that he's criticising. But then I read it carefully and realised that while he did some great condemnation, provided he's accurate, which is sort of hard to prove, he wasn't actually suggesting anything useful. Also his sentences meander in a way I don't like because it takes the definitions of many things for granted when they have different meanings for different people.