I'm just curious why, when the bird flu arose in China the world was on high alert and we were warned against travel and to be careful, and the media watched it's progress like a hawk--even though it took months to move from China to the rest of the world. Instead, Swine flu arises, quickly kills 50 people in Mexico, within days it's across the Atlantic...and yet the media tells us that we shouldn't worry this time. Am I the only one confused? I can't help but see a strong double standard or the hand of propaganda at work through the WHO. A disease comes from the west and it's 'let's wait and see, it's probably not that bad' but a disease comes from the east and it's 'we're all probably going to die if we're not super careful and cut all ties to the country of origin'. Come on! These are peoples lives! More common sense and less politics please.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Sunday, April 19, 2009
Tenuous Freedoms
The G20 summit in London has been over for a while now but questions into the actions of the police are still arising. It seems this is becoming common after such meetings (as, of course, are the protests). One comment made was that the police must remember they are servants of the public, not masters. Incidentally, the same should be true of politicians. It seems to me that comment precisely encapsulates the problem. More and more, especially since 9/11, the authorities seem to feel they are our masters and we, the helpless, ignorant children. Furthermore, it has surely become obvious over the last 8 years is that, despite all the protections built into our constitutions and political systems, any freedoms we possess are still at the whim of the powerful and we could lose them at any time. This should be a wake-up call to all but the most willfully ignorant.
Early Fandom
It occurred to me recently that religion is the first example of fandom. Many people are religious and/or defend their religion on the basis of the great story it tells. Many children are introduced to religion through the stories: 'baby Jesus' at Christmas comes readily to mind. To me, this is nothing other than an example of fandom. It's literally no different than believing Atlantis is real because Plato wrote about it thousands of years ago. Or that Middle Earth is real because of the richly detailed background of the story. I'm convinced that if Lord of the Rings had been written two thousand years ago it would now be the basis of a religion.
Saturday, January 10, 2009
Israel-Palestine Conflict: a fractal pattern
I has recently occurred to me that the Israel-Palestine conflict seems to be a fractal pattern of conflict. By this I mean that the conflict is present, and essentially similar in concept, at all levels from global to personal. This is typically unlike most conflicts, which will often vary greatly when viewed at the international level as compared to the interpersonal level.
As an example, the Iraq war (or Vietnam, or many other recent wars). Internationally, the US government went to war against Iraq and thus the two countries were in conflict. Yet if this was extended down to the level of states or further to individual people, say an American and an Iraqi meeting in the street in New York, or Kansas, or L.A. there would likely be no conflict or even thought of conflict.
Yet in the situation of Israel and Palestine, essentially the same conflict can be found to exist at all levels. First, internationally: Israel is surrounded by Arabic nations who generally desire Israel's demise (one might also extend this one level outward and suggest that the Arabic nations are, in some way, surrounded by Christians--the allies of the Jewish in this conflict) just as Israel surrounds the Palestinian territories and in many cases, let's be honest here, longs for the demise of Palestine. So the international situation mimics the national situation. Furthermore, on a personal level there is often great distrust between Israeli and Palestinian (is there any surprise why?) even when the most liberal of each side are involved. When those less liberal in their thinking are involved there is obviously open conflict.
So we see the fractal pattern of conflict: the large scale (international), the mid-scale (national) and the small scale (personal) all mimicking each other. This is undoubtedly reminiscent, in some ways, of certain other wars such as WWII, where the animosity existed at all levels (although the proximity component was often missing).
Perhaps this fractal analysis of conflict is a new method of thinking about the 'power' of the conflict, and the degree of effort that will be needed to resolve it. Were I an historian, I might go about applying the principles to other conflicts to see if there might truly be a general utility. In the meantime, however, I think it seems valid for use here. WWII , for example, essentially required the complete elimination of the opposing forces and the total destruction of several cities (both by conventional and nuclear forces). In analogy, I'm suggesting that the view of the Israel-Palestine conflict taken by the West is overly simplistic in its scope and therefore we can't help but attempt to enforce overly simplistic 'solutions'. We are mislead by apparent scale: 'two tiny states far away fighting it out'. One can't help but realize, however, that this is a conflict that has shaped much of modern history (and, in many ways, ancient history also). The Fractal analysis also supports what should be obvious to anyone who has truly looked at the conflict: that it is very deep seeded. There is no way that such a conflict will be resolved with band-aid measures. However it is finally resolved, via bloodbath or miraculous peaceful discourse (and that would make it the first conflict of such seriousness ever to be solved by talking) it will require an immense effort not just on the part of Israel and Palestine, but also by the West.
As an example, the Iraq war (or Vietnam, or many other recent wars). Internationally, the US government went to war against Iraq and thus the two countries were in conflict. Yet if this was extended down to the level of states or further to individual people, say an American and an Iraqi meeting in the street in New York, or Kansas, or L.A. there would likely be no conflict or even thought of conflict.
Yet in the situation of Israel and Palestine, essentially the same conflict can be found to exist at all levels. First, internationally: Israel is surrounded by Arabic nations who generally desire Israel's demise (one might also extend this one level outward and suggest that the Arabic nations are, in some way, surrounded by Christians--the allies of the Jewish in this conflict) just as Israel surrounds the Palestinian territories and in many cases, let's be honest here, longs for the demise of Palestine. So the international situation mimics the national situation. Furthermore, on a personal level there is often great distrust between Israeli and Palestinian (is there any surprise why?) even when the most liberal of each side are involved. When those less liberal in their thinking are involved there is obviously open conflict.
So we see the fractal pattern of conflict: the large scale (international), the mid-scale (national) and the small scale (personal) all mimicking each other. This is undoubtedly reminiscent, in some ways, of certain other wars such as WWII, where the animosity existed at all levels (although the proximity component was often missing).
Perhaps this fractal analysis of conflict is a new method of thinking about the 'power' of the conflict, and the degree of effort that will be needed to resolve it. Were I an historian, I might go about applying the principles to other conflicts to see if there might truly be a general utility. In the meantime, however, I think it seems valid for use here. WWII , for example, essentially required the complete elimination of the opposing forces and the total destruction of several cities (both by conventional and nuclear forces). In analogy, I'm suggesting that the view of the Israel-Palestine conflict taken by the West is overly simplistic in its scope and therefore we can't help but attempt to enforce overly simplistic 'solutions'. We are mislead by apparent scale: 'two tiny states far away fighting it out'. One can't help but realize, however, that this is a conflict that has shaped much of modern history (and, in many ways, ancient history also). The Fractal analysis also supports what should be obvious to anyone who has truly looked at the conflict: that it is very deep seeded. There is no way that such a conflict will be resolved with band-aid measures. However it is finally resolved, via bloodbath or miraculous peaceful discourse (and that would make it the first conflict of such seriousness ever to be solved by talking) it will require an immense effort not just on the part of Israel and Palestine, but also by the West.
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
For Crimes Against Humanity...
The global financial crisis was perpetrated by a few hand-fulls of people and will affect potentially billions. There is no question that, left to their own devices, the perpetrators would have continued their destructive policies. Therefore, I feel there should be no other recourse than to try them for crimes against humanity. Their policies were intentionally deceitful and they showed an utter disdain for the harm they were causing and have caused. This should leave no doubt that these people are of the worst sort of human and must be made to pay for their crimes.
Sunday, December 14, 2008
On Visions and Reality
How can a person spend so much time looking in the mirror without truly seeing themselves?
Sunday, December 7, 2008
A Thought on Modern Life
Today it's all about the destination. Where has the enjoyment of the journey gone?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)