Heh.. based on some of
Heh.. based on some of the information available at glish.com i redid the template for the blog so that it doesn’t use any tables for display.
Heh.. based on some of the information available at glish.com i redid the template for the blog so that it doesn’t use any tables for display.
This is just too cool. At glish.com there is a great discussion of and samples of different cascading style sheets (CSS). These are used to control the appearance of web pages. The whole glish site is layed out without using any tables. Good stuff!
Edward White, a colleague of mine in New York City sent the following to me in response to Rushdie’s commentary that I posted below:
“After reading Rushdie’s elegant prose I hate to get into print on this, but feel obliged. American foreign policy and the general attitudes of Americans towards it, and the world at large, is that we’d like foreign relations to be neat, simple, understandable and not take too much of our time. We know we’re the “nice guys” (no, seriously, I think we are–comparatively speaking of course) and we’d like everybody else (1) to know it (2) to like us, and (3) to be like us.
“Well it ain’t happenin’. They don’t know it, they don’t like us and they aren’t like us at all. We also want our “solutions” to be at least total, if not quick. That pretty much sums up the official view of our war on terrorism. The President says it won’t be quick but it will be total. So, we set ourselves up for failure, because there is no total solution. We’ll have to keep slogging away at this for a long time on all fronts — military (hopefully in short, sharp engagements), diplomatic, financial, intelligence, etc., but at the end of the day we’ll find there are still some glassy eyed buggers out there who think they have truth by the balls and see it as their divine right (and duty) to bury us. So we keep hitting them, and we don’t need to apologize or get anybody’s permission to do so. We also have to recognize that “colateral damage” is an inevitable cost, so we aren’t going to suddenly start being popular.
“I cannot imagine any shifts in America’s policies that would remove world economic disparities or right all the political and diplomatic wrongs that have been committed, including those by us. Nor does my reading of history turn up any society that has shown more willingness to try the impossible or greater generosity in trying to help the disadvantaged nations (which is NOT erased by the fact that it’s good business to do so when your aid dollars ultimately are spent mainly in the US buying American goods and services).
“In the final analysis, you can’t train people who see terrorism as a viable mode of behavior not to hate you nor, when they’re suicidal, can you frighten them into not trying to kill you. If you can’t solve a problem, the best plan is to eliminate it. But common sense says it’s going to keep on being there, perhaps forever. “Successive approximation” both as a goal and a strategy is probably as good as it gets.”
In his weblog, Andrew Pulrang comments, …On the other hand, Bin Laden undercuts his own credibility by casting his argument in religious terms…
The whole post is well worth a read. I think this statement and the argument below it need a little qualification, though. The statements Bin Laden is making cause him to loose credibility in our eyes and perhaps in the eyes of many Muslims. What he says though clearly appeals to enough people that he is formidable.
Statements like Bin Laden’s are just not “21st century.” Andrew is right that they belong in the age of the Christian kings if not the Byzantine Empire. I’ve long thought that it would be worth the exercise of comparing the Middle East of today to Europe at the beginning of the Renassiance. Europe had been the heart of a vast, Roman, empire that crumbled and destroyed most of the existant civil and psychological infrastructure and plunged Europe into a dark age. I wonder if the same could be said about the Middle East in one way or another.
A wonderful high culture of arts and sciences existed in the Middle East. I’ve heard it argued that it was not the Irish that saved civilization but the Arabs, by proactively acquiring as much knowledge and literature as possible and not just transcribing it, but studying it and furthering it. This corpus of learning was rediscovered (relearned?) by Europe starting after the Reconquest of Spain. Was the decline of the influence of the Middle Eastern cultures analogous to the European Dark Ages?
Imagine the confusion and uncertainty, and the backlash they caused, in Europe as science was again communicated and practiced. In the last 50 years advances in communication have bombarded the developing world and the Middle East with current ideas of life, the universe and everything. Might this be a real cause of the Occidentosis (fear/hatred of the West) that is manifest today?
Boy, that’s enough rambling for tonight!
I admit that earlier I was rather introspective about the attacks and was quick to point out that Americans have, in the past, largly ignored the outside world and different cultures. I never intended to be an apologist, though. We did not bring these attacks on ourselves. The complete surprise expressed at the September 11 events is what I intended as the focus of my comments. We should not have been surprised.
I keep referring to “the attacks,” what were they? Bombings? Arguably a 757 loaded with fuel is quite a bomb. A strike? It came quickly and by air — I think that qualifies as a strike. I see myself falling into the pattern used by the media of not altering the way an event or a person is described — Elian Gonzalez’ cousins in Florida are always “the Miami relatives” and such. I understand why Homer (the poet, not Simpson) used the technique and always referred to the likes “swift footed Achilles,” he was an oral historian and by always referring to Achilles as such it was one more thing he didn’t have to think about. He wasn’t working with a script — newscasters and other journalists hardly ever say anything unscripted, so why not get a little creative? Or are they the oral historians of our era? Personally, I’ll take Homer over Dan Rather any day.
A friend sent me this article by Salmon Rushdie. Its a good read, and the advice is worth heeding:
Salman Rushdie
Guardian
Saturday October 6, 2001
In January 2000 I wrote that “the defining struggle of the new age would be between terrorism and security,” and fretted that to live by the security experts’ worst-case scenarios might be to surrender too many of our liberties to the invisible shadow-warriors of the secret world. Democracy requires visibility, I argued, and in the struggle between security and freedom we must always err on the side of freedom.
On Tuesday September 11, however, the worst-case scenario came true. They broke our city. I’m among the newest of New Yorkers, but even people who have never set foot in Manhattan have felt its wounds deeply, because New York is the beating heart of the visible world – tough-talking, spirit-dazzling, Walt Whitman’s “city of orgies, walks and joys,” his “proud and passionate city – mettlesome, mad, extravagant city!”
To this bright capital of the visible, the forces of invisibility have dealt a dreadful blow. No need to say how dreadful; we all saw it, are all changed by it. Now we must ensure that the wound is not mortal, that the world of what is seen triumphs over what is cloaked, what is perceptible only through the effects of its awful deeds.
In making free societies safe – safer – from terrorism, our civil liberties will inevitably be compromised. But in return for freedom’s partial erosion, we have a right to expect that our cities, water, planes and children really will be better protected than they have been. The west’s response to the September 11 attacks will be judged in large measure by whether people begin to feel safe once again in their homes, their workplaces, their daily lives. This is the confidence we have lost, and must regain.
Next: the question of the counter-attack. Yes, we must send our shadow-warriors against theirs, and hope that ours prevail. But this secret war alone cannot bring victory. We will also need a public, political and diplomatic offensive whose aim must be the early resolution of some of the world’s thorniest problems: above all the battle between Israel and the Palestinian people for space, dignity, recognition and survival.
Better judgment will be required on all sides in future. No more Sudanese aspirin factories to be bombed, please. And now that wise American heads appear to have understood that it would be wrong to bomb the impoverished, oppressed Afghan people in retaliation for their tyrannous masters’ misdeeds, they might apply that wisdom, retrospectively, to what was done to the impoverished, oppressed people of Iraq. It’s time to stop making enemies and start making friends.
To say this is in no way to join in the savaging of America by sections of the left that has been among the most unpleasant consequences of the terrorists’ attacks on the United States. “The problem with Americans is…” “What America needs to understand…” There has been a lot of sanctimonious moral relativism around lately, usually prefaced by such phrases as these. A country which has just suffered the most devastating terrorist attack in history, a country in a state of deep mourning and horrible grief, is being told, heartlessly, that it is to blame for its own citizens’ deaths. (“Did we deserve this, sir?” a bewildered worker at “Ground Zero” asked a visiting British journalist recently. I find the grave courtesy of that “sir” quite astonishing.)
Let’s be clear about why this bien-pensant anti-American onslaught is such appalling rubbish. Terrorism is the murder of the innocent; this time, it was mass murder. To excuse such an atrocity by blaming US government policies is to deny the basic idea of all morality: that individuals are responsible for their actions.
Furthermore, terrorism is not the pursuit of legitimate complaints by illegitimate means. The terrorist wraps himself in the world’s grievances to cloak his true motives. Whatever the killers were trying to achieve, it seems improbable that building a better world was part of it. The fundamentalist seeks to bring down a great deal more than buildings. Such people are against, to offer just a brief list, freedom of speech, a multi-party political system, universal adult suffrage, accountable government, Jews, homosexuals, women’s rights, pluralism, secularism, short skirts, dancing, beardlessness, evolution theory, sex. These are tyrants, not Muslims.
(Islam is tough on suicides, who are doomed to repeat their deaths through all eternity. However, there needs to be a thorough examination, by Muslims everywhere, of why it is that the faith they love breeds so many violent mutant strains. If the west needs to understand its Unabombers and McVeighs, Islam needs to face up to its Bin Ladens.)
United Nations Secretary- General Kofi Annan has said that we should now define ourselves not only by what we are for, but by what we are against. I would reverse that proposition, because in the present instance what we are against is a no-brainer. Suicidist assassins ram wide- bodied aircraft into the World Trade Centre and Pentagon and kill thousands of people: um, I’m against that. But what are we for? What will we risk our lives to defend? Can we unanimously concur that all the items in the above list – yes, even the short skirts and dancing – are worth dying for?
The fundamentalist believes that we believe in nothing. In his world-view, he has his absolute certainties, while we are sunk in sybaritic indulgences. To prove him wrong, we must first know that he is wrong. We must agree on what matters: kissing in public places, bacon sandwiches, disagreement, cutting-edge fashion, literature, generosity, water, a more equitable distribution of the world’s resources, movies, music, freedom of thought, beauty, love. These will be our weapons. Not by making war, but by the unafraid way we choose to live shall we defeat them.
How to defeat terrorism? Don’t be terrorised. Don’t let fear rule your life. Even if you are scared.
© Salman Rushdie, 2001.
The Washington Post published an article today (Losing Track of Illegal Immigrants (washingtonpost.com)) about how impossible it is for the INS to keep track of illegal immigrants. I and a number of my close friends work in the international development field with people from overseas who receive sponsorships from our government to come to the States for training.
This is a good thing. It is right for our government, with its foreign policy, to spend money to train people from other countries here in the states. The benefits cut both ways. The foreign nationals receive exposure to new ideas and to our way of life. That’s a big benefit for them. For us, the benefit may not be quite so tangible, but it is real nonetheless.
The money that is given gets spent here in the U.S. on tuition, shopping, entertainment and travel. Also, people here in the States get to meet foreigners! Don’t downplay that at all. It is as important for us here to learn what makes Bosnians, Russians, Iranians, Egyptians, etc tick as it is for them to learn what makes us go.
It’s been quite a while since I put anything up here. Clearly. I’ve been busy! In addition to work, I’m singing again with the Ron Freeman Chorale and now with a local church.
I’m also spending time playing around with a relatively new computer language, Python, that is not only easy to use, but has a very complete set of libraries. Big deal? Yeah, sorta. But having a good set of libraries makes it very easy to do some sophisticated things because all the details are already worked out. All you have to do is string together a bunch of commands that call the other routines. Okay, I can’t help it, I’m a geek.