Article-writing lockdown here

I just have to intensify the article-writing lockdown I’ve been trying to impose on myself for the past week. For some reason this Boston Review piece is proving hard to organize… Mainly, there’s ways too much to say. Plus I have to finish another piece soon, for Tom Paine, for the fifth anniversary of 9/11.
Meanwhile, a lot of other stuff has been going on in my life. Including Quaker commitments, family stuff like the kids coming to visit, etc., etc. The rich fabric of a real life, you might say.
Rightly.
Yeah, well. But I didn’t even have the time or energy yesterday to go run the C’ville Women’s Four-miler Race, which I generally like to do. Maybe this year would’ve been the year I busted 40 mins for the race?? Who knows??
Anyway, much thanks to those who’ve been sending me material either for the BR piece or for JWN. I must promise myself however at this point, though, that I shan’t put any new posts on the blog till I’ve finished the BR piece.
So just post interesting things here yourselves, onto the various existing comments threads, as appropriate.

6 thoughts on “Article-writing lockdown here”

  1. It is always very tempting for a political leader to rank external threats facing his nation in order of the ease with which they can be engaged and defeated by the military forces at the leader’s disposal. We saw this with George Bush’s focus on defeating Saddam Hussein’s crumbling army, in lieu of dealing with the actual situation in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, etc. We are now seeing it with Israel’s apparent shift of focus from trying to deal with Hezbollah and Hamas to preparing for war with Syria and Iran. It is no coincidence that Israel’s conventional military, like that of the US, is much more suited to attacking the fixed infrastructure and military assets of other nation-states than to combating guerilla networks.
    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2340486,00.html (“In Washington, the military hawks believe that an airstrike against Iranian nuclear bunkers remains a more straightforward, if risky, operation than chasing Hezbollah fighters and their mobile rocket launchers in Lebanon.”)
    Leaders of late-stage capitalist countries with some vestige of representative government seem particularly susceptible to this impulse. It is a reflection of internal political division and structural weakness in the leaders’ societies – a form of decadence. It involves sacrificing long-term strategic goals for short-term political gains. It is one of the positive feedback mechanisms that tend to accelerate decline.

  2. Helena,
    I don’t always agree with you but greatly admire the energy and zest for life you always display…traveling, writing, networking, church activities, family life, etc…and that’s just in the morning!

  3. John C.
    attacking the fixed infrastructure and military assets of other nation-states
    In both cases (Iraq, Lebanon) it’s like punishing a kid by a big boy or a man and the kid has no chose just his bear hands to defend himself.
    The reality in both cases John, Iraq comparing to US military capability its nothing what Bush and the US military leader made of propaganda at a time it’s to build the case for war.
    But I still believe the real motive it’s the long strategic gaols one of then make Israel safer.
    As for Lebanon what and their mobile rocket launchers its reality laughing matter here comparing the military powerful Israelis capability with (a Cat’s nails) they just bites the skin, as we saw in this war, the point here Israelis never experienced in all the wars in the region any direct and inside distractions or hits of their civilian life’s.
    .
    During this war in Lebanon, some news reported that many Israelis died due to they scared from the hits during the war (Heart attacks) which indicates this state build and its society build on making wars on the others side land but with Lebanon when the war felt inside and start bite their civilians they rush for the ceasefire, and we seeing the political dram going on.

  4. CHILDREN’S LAWS OF OWNERSHIP
    1. If I like it, it is mine
    2. If it’s in my hand, it’s mine
    3. If I can take it from you, it’s mine
    4. If I had it a little while ago, it’s mine
    5. If it’s mine, it must never appear to be yours in any way
    6. If I’m doing or building something, all the pieces are mine
    7. If it looks just like mine, it’s mine
    8. If I think it’s mine, it’s mine
    9. If it’s yours and I steal it, it’s mine
    10. If ………………………!
    Oops, sorry I’ve been reading Israeli Foreign Policy documents
    Never mind….
    Have a nice day!

  6. Truesdell, thanks for your kind words. It means a lot to me that on this blog, though people disagree (often strongly) we can still relate in a friendly fashion. As one does with one’s own neighbors in real life– you may have strong disagreements about politics, art, music, or whatever but you (generally) also see tham as human beings, help ’em out in a crisis, understand you have common interests, admire their grandchildren, etc.
    Salah, I appreciate your contributions too. But you seem not to be quite aware of the dangers of discourse-hoggingdiscourse-hogging

Comments are closed.