Month: March 2011

Ben Kafka muses about pushing paper:

Paperwork occupies us and preoccupies us, whether we are maritime lawyers or nail-salon owners, congressional aides or human-resource managers, college professors or freelance web designers. Which leads me to wonder: why is there so little solidarity among all of us paperworkers? Why do we so often feel sorry for ourselves, so burdened by paperwork of one kind or another, while having so little sympathy for others—the dean who signs off on a clumsy sentence, the secretary who misaddresses an envelope, the paralegal who misses a deadline, the insurance agent who misfiles a claims form?

The reason, I think, is that paperwork has never fit comfortably into our idea of what work means, or what it means to work.

Rod Dreher interviews Nidhal Guessoum, author of Islam’s Quantum Question: Reconciling Muslim Tradition and Modern Science, about the hurdles ahead:

[O]ut of 1,000 or so universities in the Arab world, only two or three are in world’s top 500 — and they are ranked between 400 and 500); while the Arab world’s population makes up about five percent of the world’s and its financial resources are much larger than that, only 1.1 percent of the world’s scientific production comes out of the Arab region; the number of frequently cited scientific papers is 43 per million people in the USA, 80 in Switzerland, and 38 in Israel; it is 0.02 in Egypt, 0.07 in Saudi Arabia, 0.01 in Algeria, and 0.53 in Kuwait.

"A six month journey along the 2,200 mile long Appalachian Trail, condensed and reinterpreted into five minutes of stop-motion":

Green Tunnel from Kevin Gallagher on Vimeo.

David Weisman explores how Buddhism gets the brain right:

Neuroscience tells us the thing we take as our unified mind is an illusion, that our mind 
is not unified and can barely be said to “exist” at all. Our feeling of unity and control is a post-hoc confabulation and is easily fractured into separate parts. As revealed by scientific inquiry, what we call a mind (or a self, or a soul) is actually something that changes so much and is so uncertain that our pre-scientific language struggles to find meaning.

Buddhists say pretty much the same thing. They believe in an impermanent and illusory self made of shifting parts. They’ve even come up with language to address the problem between perception and belief. Their word for self is anatta, which is usually translated as ‘non self.’  One might try to refer to the self, but the word cleverly reminds one’s self that there is no such thing.

(Image: ‘Cognitive Transformation’ by artist Ben Tolman.)

I may have missed something, but from right to left in the blogosphere, one can find almost no one actively supporting and praising the Clinton-McCain Obama administration's war against the Qaddafi regime. The far left is enraged and talking impeachment; the right is smug and contemptuous, even when they agree.

If you find some enthused support for the war from Obama supporters online, let me know. All I can find is the tiny clique of liberal interventionists who, like Peter Bergen, have already been overtaken by events. Not that it matters what anyone thinks except for one man, but please send me whatever blog or MSM support you can.

Sierra Madre, California, 9.45 am

Mike Mullen explains the genius behind this recklessness.

Boehner threads the needle:

“The President is the commander-in-chief, but the Administration has a responsibility to define for the American people, the Congress, and our troops what the mission in Libya is, better explain what America’s role is in achieving that mission, and make clear how it will be accomplished. Before any further military commitments are made, the Administration must do a better job of communicating to the American people and to Congress about our mission in Libya and how it will be achieved.”

But the president is visiting Brazil! He doesn't have the time to explain to the American people properly the war that he, and he alone, decided on. Why tell the public? Their permission is irrelevant; as is the Congress's. The Washington Times calls the war "illegal" without a Congressional vote.

The only forces on the right that will support Obama will be the neocons. But they will be merciless in attacking the haphazard, zig-zagging way the president has ended up here. It's win-win for them. They can say: Obama is finally taking our advice. But if you want military intervention without "dithering", vote for Palin next time.

Fallows examines the arrogant, high-handed and undemocratic nature of a war no-one but a handful of people decided on – with no Congressional vote, no public debate, and in violation of core campaign promises by Obama. My anger is not simply at what I regard as the folly of starting a long war with someone as insane as Qaddafi, but at the way this war was foisted on the public with absolutely no warning.

It shows contempt for the American people, and their views, and contempt for the Congress and its role in deliberating before going to war. As Fallows notes, this entire debate was entirely about changing one man's mind, not the country or the Congress or the people. Only the emperor counts, and if he happens to be wrong, tough luck. Who would have thought we'd elect Barack Obama to replicate the worst aspects of an unaccountable executive?

Fallows again:

After this spectacular first stage of air war, what happens then? If the airstrikes persuade Qaddafi and his forces just to quit, great! But what if they don't? What happens when a bomb lands in the "wrong" place? As one inevitably will. When Arab League supporters of the effort see emerging "flaws" and "abuses" in its execution? As they will. When the fighting goes on and the casualties mount up and a commitment meant to be "days, not weeks" cannot "decently" be abandoned, after mere days, with so many lives newly at stake? When the French, the Brits, and other allies reach the end of their military resources — or their domestic support — and more of the work naturally shifts to the country with more weapons than the rest of the world combined?

(Photo: President Obama on a trip in Brazil immediately after declaring war on the Libyan regime. By Jim Watson/Getty.)

Our coverage over the last two days can be read in one post here.