Drowning in the Tangle

So much going on. I stand in dereliction of duty, and this site stagnates. Consider this remediation. I hope to return to this with posts on recent events in Pakistan, Turkey, Palestine and Lebanon, and hopefully a couple of pieces on energy issues.

Briefly, regarding Pakistan, its near beyond expression. I spent many days and nights following political, cultural and social issues in Pakistan prior to the horrific flooding. To add scenes of disaster, muddy and cold disaster, makes me recoil in such a way as to not feel. In fact, it compels shutdown. I will do my best, in the next few days to say more about it.

Stay tuned . . .

Re-Aligned Priorities

A few years ago, I took an internship with a boutique literary agency in West LA. At one point during my stint there, the Agent asked us interns to develop a book idea, fiction or non-fiction, that we thought would result in a compelling publication for a major publisher. The United States had at that point been engaged in the war in Iraq for a few years and I had become fascinated with the Turkish issue. At that point in time it seemed that Turkey stood at a crucial crossroads. Ankara had roundly denied US flyover rights through its airspace into northern targets in Iraq, and had been panned by the neocons for its apparent refusal to play along. This signalled to me the increasing importance of Turkey on the global scene. Ankara had taken a bold step in standing up to the neocon agenda and solidified its place as an independent actor. Given its geostrategic location, its increasing influence in both the Eurozone and the Arab states, and its secular, democratic (read: Kemalist) traditions, it seemed to me that a post 9/11 public would be hungry for reading material about this emerging nation.

Well, no book was ever produced, despite some modest efforts on my part. However, my prognostications seem to have been largely accurate. Since the fall of the Ottoman Empire and the creation of the modern nation-state of Turkey, Ankara's natural inclination has been to stay out of the Middle Eastern arena, while trying to convince its Western neighbors that Turkey's rightful place was among the nations of Enlightenment Europe. This, of course, was a project rife with considerable obstacles. Some 90 plus percent of Turks are Muslims, yet the continuously secular character of the nation has always been guaranteed by the dedication of the nation's army to this end. Contrast this with Pakistan, whose military establishment has consistently counted Islamists among its ranks, or Iran whose Revolutionary Guard has been the very arm of Allah himself, promising the continuation of Imam Khomeini's revolution.

Before the commencement of hostilities in Iraq, the Pentagon had asked Ankara to show its support for the war effort by allowing U.S. flyover rights through Turkish airspace and into the northern provinces of Iraq The people of Turkey emerged on the streets in huge numbers, and Ankara responded to Washington by reflecting the will of the people, and denied the Pentagon's request. Despite the fact that the Turkish government seemingly embodied the very democratic ideals that Washington claimed it was spreading to the Middle East, the neocon administration derisively panned Ankara's decision.

It was a turning point for Turkey. Its geostrategic location was highlighted by the fact that war was now on its southern border. It also brought light to the fact that this was a large, complex, and cosmopolitan nation that seemed to have - at least for the moment - achieved some balance between Islam and democratic and free market institutions. To be sure, Turkey had its internal and external issues - in particular the lack of official recognition of the Armenian Genocide and the resulting human rights violations, as well as the persistent and bloody Kurdish issue. Nonetheless, Turkey was emerging on the world stage, the crossroads between Europe and Asia, between the Islamic world and the secular West.

For some time, it seemed that the specific mode by which Turkey would be integrated into the greater global community was through membership in the EU. This has been a subject of contentious debate for decades, with intensely felt opinions on both sides of the Bosporus, often devolving into racism and xenophobia. In Paris and Berlin, the possible inclusion of Turkey into "Europe" seemed to challenge the very meaning of the word. If Turkey, with its 70 million Muslims, its lower standard of living, and its questionable human rights standards became a part of Europe, then what is Europe? The debate continues and significant issues remain, particularly Turkish claims in Cyprus, the jailing of anti-establishment journalists in Turkey, and the rise of a moderate Pan-Islamist movement in the form of the AK Party. It seems for the moment, the Kemalist dream of a European Turkey is a dream deferred.

The entire European Union project met perhaps its greatest challenge with the recent economic struggles of Greece, and the continued worry about the future of the Spanish economy. The idea of a "united" Europe, that lives and dies together, stood naked in a stark light of skepticism when Berlin seemingly tried everything to avoid using its own purse to bailout Athens. A few observers (myself included) wondered out loud: "Maybe Turkey doesn't have as much to gain in the EU as it once thought?" The idea of bailing out smaller, mismanaged and slow developing economies for the sake of collective risk management and strength in the currency market may not be worth the price. The leaders of the AKP began to re-interpret the Kemalist legacy, envisioning Turkey as a dynamic state all its own, with influence in Europe and in the Arab world (and ultimately beyond), which it had never historically considered a major arena of engagement.

The re-alignment of foreign policy priorities owes its emergence to numerous factors, including the war in Iraq and the removal of Saddam Hussein. However, perhaps the single most important factor is the change within Turkey itself. This historically secular society has begun - even if modestly - to look at its Islamic heritage as part and parcel of its identity. Perhaps the clearest and most significant reflections of this trend is the Justice and Development Party, known in Turkey as the AKP, or AK Party. Moderately Conservative may be the best way to describe the party's spectrum balance. But perhaps what is most significant is the fact that the AKP withstood a judicial challenge that accused the party of engaging in "anti-secular activities" that contravened the Turkish National Constitution. The case revolved around lifting the ban on the hijab, and the AKP was vindicated when the Turkish High Court could not render a verdict against the party.

The AKP brings a vision of Turkey that is deeply engaged in the Middle East and with its Islamic neighbors. This vital shift has resulted in a re-alignment of regional power. Iraq remains an occupied nation. Saudi Arabia perhaps still wields great regional influence, given its oil wealth and custodianship of the pilgrimage sites, yet the threat of its unholy alliance with Wahhabism and the rise of internal threats to the Monarchy place the Saudis in a precarious situation. Iran meanwhile has emerged as state with likely the largest potential to assert more regional influence. However, the recent UN sanctions and woeful economic state within the Islamic Republic may destabilize Tehran and prove a major obstacle to any serious pretensions to regional hegemony. This puts the recent rapprochement between Ankara and Damascus into an even more interesting light. Syria still maintains serious influence in Lebanon, particularly through its regional proxies (read: Hezbollah). Ankara's increasingly frenetic participation in Middle Eastern affairs is evident by its fuel-swap arrangement with Tehran, and its recent vociferous public condemnation of Israel's brutal response to an international aid flotilla attempting to break the Gaza blockade. The new regional alignment seems to run from Ankara to Damascus and then Tehran. Strange bedfellows in many ways, yet these states will likely hold the helm in Middle Eastern affairs in the emerging decade.

By the Numbers

Quick hit today. Let's look at some figures for the War in Afghanistan to date:

-Total US cost of the war since 2001: Currently estimated at $272 Billion. This is approximately $2,044 per year per taxpayer since 2001. The administration will be asking Congress to approve a further $59 billion in the coming months. Furthermore, many economists, including Joseph Stieglitz, have projected that the final cost of the war, including humanitarian costs, treatment for wounded soldiers and future outlays for equipment and infrastructure could push the figure near $1.5 trillion. this information was taken largely from the National Priorities Project.

- U.S. Military deaths: As of today have passed 1,000. 630 casualties were recorded for the years 2001-2008. 450 casualties have been recorded from all of 2009 and 2010 to date. this increase has been attributed to the resurgence of the Taliban after a period of retreat and re-organization. Figures obtained from Human Rights Watch and icasualties.org.

- Since 2001, 5,725 U.S. soldiers have been wounded in Afghanistan. Taken from icasualties.org.

- Afghan Civilian Death Toll: Estimated for Afghan civilian deaths vary widely. Reliable statistical data has only been recorded since 2006-2007. In 2009 alone, 2,412 Afghan civilian deaths were recorded. Direct and indirect deaths since 2001 are estimated at between 13,372-32,969. Again, the wide range in estimate is due largely to semi-official nature of the statistical data from the year 2001-2006. Further detail can be retrieved from afghanconflictmonitor.org.

Go in peace my friends . . .

-

The Subject of Cinema

Shortly after the beginning of the war in Iraq, as the insurgency emerged as a serious threat to the American war effort, U.S. military commanders started screening The Battle of Algiers to troops in hopes of shedding some light on understanding and successfully waging a counter-insurgency campaign. Gillo Pontecorvo's classic and controversial film reads like documentary and remains to this day one of the most vital records of the battle between French Colonialism and the Algerian resistance movement, despite the fact that it is a fictional piece. But there is something about film that reaches us on a level that often times no other media can achieve. The combination of sight, sound, time and character - when executed well - has an almost immediate and often indelible impact on both our emotions and intellects.

The French Education Ministry has announced a plan to make some 200 films available online for secondary school students throughout France. While cinema is taught in some of the wealthier, elite high schools in France, the cine-lycee project will make these films available through the Internet to all students in France. The initiative hopes to provide students with not only exposure to France's own brilliant and varied cinematic tradition, but also with access to global cinema and thus a greater global perspective.

I think we should implement similar programs here in the U.S. Hollywood hosts the largest and most globally successful film industry in the world. And while it is mostly the blockbusters, screwball comedies and happy-ending romances that make their way to the local and global cineplexes, our own American cinematic canon contains numerous artists whose influence and vision has left deep footprints in our culture.

Film simultaneously reflects who we are as a society, as well as shed light on the marginal and hidden aspects of our culture and what it may become. Charlie Chaplin's tramp in "Modern Times" examined the comic/tragic anxiety of the modern industrial age; The films of the Cohen brothers shed light on the American obsession for personal power and its consequences; even recent films like "The Hangover" and "Knocked Up" speak to the suspended state of adolescence of the contemporary American man child. And thematic investigations aside, innumerable writers, directors, cinematographers and actors have filled our imaginations with beautiful and unique images that have influenced our language, our visual culture, and even our often unconscious aesthetic values.

And that is just America. Exposure to world cinema can provide our students with intimate and complex portraits of the human condition from anywhere on the globe. It has been said that Americans learn geography only after the U.S. military starts the air war, and CNN shows maps of the war zone on the nightly news. Perhaps cinema can provide an opportunity for our students to learn about the people who inhabit all of those distant and opaque places, and lend a new sensitivity to our global understanding.

In this time of economic struggle, as schools across the nation slash budgets for arts and music education, the French cine-lycee project provides an affordable example of cultural education. Math, science and reading are certainly vital in assuring our continued prosperity, and ultimately survival. However, without understanding expressions of culture, beauty and creativity, what good is prosperity?

The Long Goodbye

It was in 1995 that I first heard Wonderwall by Oasis. It was a Rock and Roll road to Damascus moment. I grew up with English pop music, despite growing up 7,000 miles from Albion. My sisters owned (and I inherited) records by New Order, Madness, Depeche Mode, the Smiths. However, as much as I loved those bands, and many others, they always inhabited a place of latent nostalgia and disconnection; what pop music could be, once was, somewhere far away.

Wonderwall was now. Britpop was now. My friend Ryan and I mined the record stores for all the latest imports. Pulp, Blur, Elastica, Suede. The new crop of British bands traded on their quintessential “Englishness,” sometimes with self-conscious derision, often with unabashed cheek. I’m not sure what attracted me to Britpop. Probably no single thing, but I always felt as if American music at the time lacked humor, wit and irony. Nirvana, and grunge generally, was far too solipsistic in its dour lamenting. Britpop exploded with a compelling alchemy of optimism and self-parody, and opened up avenues for the exploration of sexuality, class, and the possibilities of the coming millennium.

There were reasons to be optimistic. The guy in the White House played the sax, and this thing called the internet promised to connect everyone in the great global village. Rave culture was emerging and promised love and spirituality for any who could hitch out to the desert and drop ecstasy. And for the first time in my life, I found a politician to believe in.

Tony Blair was young, dynamic, and seemed to embody the enthusiasm and hope that accelerated “Cool Britannia” into the global mainstream. I knew fuck all about British politics, but who cares? Blair made it a point to bring his Fender to Number 10, and even invited Noel Gallagher to Downing Street for champagne. A strange feeling of excitement and confrontation surrounded the whole thing. Maybe there was nothing left to rebel against, maybe the world was moving in the right direction, and maybe England was at the forefront.

In 1998, Pulp released This is Hardcore. Something had changed. things got darker. I had become immersed in drum and bass, as well as the Bristol sound, Tricky, Massive Attack. As the world moved closer to the millennium, the optimism started to wane. Oasis declared victory in the battle of English rock supremacy, and the lads had triumphed. The music of the Rave culture both in the States and the UK increasingly reflected the darker side of heavy drug use and ill directed liberation. This is Hardcore spoke of regrets, of pain and the attempt to heal while simultaneously facing the possibility of “growing up.” Twilight had arrived. The reign of Cool Britannia passed with a whimper.

America’s first great act of the 21st century was to elect George W. Bush as President. It was clear to me even then, that the dark days were upon us. Of course, I held out some hope - as misguided and unfounded as it may be - in Tony Blair. Britpop had passed into the annals of pop history, but Blair and New Labour remained.

The deathblow came in 2003, when the United States attacked and occupied Iraq, with the Prime Minister standing shoulder to shoulder with our chicken hawk President. I was definitely upset by my country’s decision to go to war, but I also harbored a strangely particular feeling of betrayal and disappointment. Blair? Really? How did this come to pass?

Its seven years on, and today Gordon Brown has resigned the premiership, effectively ending the era of New Labour. Damon Albarn finally crashed America, albeit as a cartoon character, and I can’t imagine David Cameron inviting him to cocktails at Number 10. Britpop occupies that place of nostalgia and disconnection that reminds me of the good old days, and I am still contemplating “growing up.”

I wonder if Nick Clegg ever played the guitar during his University days?

Changes

A quick post to announce some changes to the blog. Obviously, the look and feel has changed. Lately I have been feeling like the "Walking Narcoleptic" moniker is best used for more theory-based presentations and explorations that I have had in mind for some time now, but have gotten pushed to the wayside, because I mostly ended up using the blog space for journalistic/editorial ventures.

Thus, I would like to inaugurate the "new" site, hopefully with an expanded mission and message, and a straightforward presentation and feel.

More to come . . .

Revolution, 2.0

Of course the regime in Iran would blame foreigners for the agitation in the streets. They have to. Sure, they could admit to a modicum of legitimate disharmony after contentious elections, but in Iran appearances are everything.. If the mullahs owned up to the discontented streets, they would appear weak. No, better to scapegoat unknown alien agents from satanic, godless lands.

Yet, maybe the beards had something else on their minds. It isn’t just the agents of infiltration in public spaces. Virtual space has emerged as a new, increasingly dangerous battlefield, a battlefield strewn with the latest weapons of war: Web 2.0, personal communication technologies and internet monitoring software.

Jim Sciutto, having recently returned to Iran writes:

“The protest movement has lost momentum, suffering from a lack of
leadership and exhaustion after ten months of an often brutal crackdown.”

Part of this crackdown has been on information. Social networking technologies like facebook and twitter acted as a force multiplier in emerging protest movement that erupted after the contentious elections of June 2009. It was a cell phone video bearing witness to the murder of Neda Agha-Soltan that gave the movement a tangible human element. And bloggers continue to challenge the Iranian censors and information police to tell their stories to the rest of the world. The regime’s response to these threats has indeed been brutal, as evidenced by the recent death of Omid Reza Misayafi. Omid, a blogger and journalist, was sentenced to two and half years in prison for allegedly insulting religious leaders and engaging in propaganda against the regime. He died on March 18th while serving his sentence in Tehran’s notorious Evin Prison. Omid was being held with actual convicted criminals, and some believe this may have led to his death. However, if nothing else, Omid’s story - that of a known intellectual expressing his natural right to free speech and being persecuted by a religious tyranny - betrays the boundless audacity of the Iranian government. Furthermore, both the events that shook Iran 10 months ago and the subsequent crackdown on a nascent civil rights movement prove the power of information and the potential for effective organizing through Web 2.0 and related interfacing technologies. If they are shooting at you, it means you’re doing something right, and the mullahs have bloggers and the web in their sights.

No need for toothless allies

A report in Ha'aretz today quotes sources as saying that Hezbollah has acquired SCUD missiles from Syria. These weapons would provide a significant boost in Hezbollah's firepower. In fact, the report says that Israeli officials have suggested that SCUD's could "alter the strategic balance." SCUD's pack significantly more explosive capacity, and greater range, than the Katyusha rockets used extensively by Hezbollah in the 2006 war.

For its part, Syria has denied any such deal and claims that Israeli is manufacturing the story in order to deflect from recent criticisms of its own purported nuclear weapons capabilities.

It makes sense that Syria would provide all the help it can to Hezbollah. The regime of Al-Assad isn't particularly strong, and Hezbollah provides a useful ally, as they can wage a continuous, low-level intensity conflict with Israel. Meanwhile, Syria will align itself with the plight of the South Lebanese and the Palestinians and restate its claims to the Golan Heights. Syria could never hope to confront Israel directly, and by using a non-state proxy Assad gains the ability to influence the conflict and further a Syrian agenda, while simultaneously gaining legitimacy and prestige in terms of Syria's regional profile.

For Israel, the possibility of SCUD missiles in Hezbollah hands is highly problematic. The danger is obvious. However, this may move President Obama to rethink his current strained relationship with Israel and Netanyahu. In as much as Israel plays the role of an American client state, it's security will remain a singular priority, as the U.S. President has stated on numerous occasions. It is no good to have a toothless ally, and increased Hezbollah strategic and military capacity means that the IDF Garrisons must be fully supported.

It bodes badly fore Palestinian aspirations hoping to see a halting of settlement activity in East Jerusalem. If Hezbollah makes moves along the border, Israel will most likely raise the red flag, and while international heads are turned, the settlers will be quietly encouraged to take the backdoor out to the West Bank.

In Solidarity

This post is mostly as a shout out to other Sikhs involved in activism, and those who are not, but may want to reconsider . . .

Amanda, my partner, and I had been dating for a few months. My cousin asked me where we had met. I told him that it was at an activist meeting. I knew going into detail would elicit ridicule. He chortled back, "What? Activist for what?" Derision as veiled as a tiger tooth about to bleed a deer. If I told him it was a meeting of local Pro-Palestinian Rights group, a terminal argument would be set ablaze and I would go blue in the face trying to make someone think it was worth the time.

In retrospect, I wonder . .. Perhaps had I taken a different approach from the beginning. It's just that these days, there are not so many Sikhs that I know who really think much about activism or social justice. Forgive the generality, I know about those wonderful groups out there, mostly students and young professionals, engaged in social and political struggles to ensure not just the rights of Sikhs but others as well. Maybe its just the older generation, my parent's generation, some of whom lived through Partition, and almost all of whom were touched by 1984. Maybe they want to forget, and shield themselves from the fact that when Sikhs enter history, its often bloody and tearful. I don't know.

One thing I do know, Sikhi impels me to act. Our history of political and social struggles mirrors our own internal struggle. Spirituality in Sikhi is not some exoteric 'given,' it must to worked for, cultivated. In working to better ourselves, we must recognize the rights of others to pursue peace and growth and happiness, and this leads to abundant compassion. The martial concept in Sikhism may have sprung from self-preservation, but reached perhaps its spiritual zenith with the martyrdom of Guru Tegh Bahadur. He died bravely, with warrior spirit, so that others - non-Sikhs - could know freedom. If Miri-Piri means anything, it means this; going to battle and putting one's own life in the breach, to serve the compassion that flows from spirit. It means knowing that protecting others is self-preservation, as only such a sacrifice can truly honor the teachings of Sikhi and the lives of our Gurus.

One can turn in just about any direction, there is work to be done. Find what resonates with you, whether it is down the street or across the sea. Sewa should be more than helping to serve a meal once a week (though its always good to do that too!). Hopefully, we can recognize that the our own struggle as Sikhs mimics the struggle of so many others on this planet, and in this way, find a path forward together.

Green, the new Black

When I first watched "An Inconvenient Truth," I remember thinking how much better it would be without AL Gore's self-aggrandizing personal narrative about his passion for the slide show. And then, just yesterday, I heard that same voice on NPR, extolling the potential fecundity of a "green economy." Everyone's home will have photovoltaic panels, and jobs will be created to, um, create new battery technologies, the likes of which haven't even been conceived of yet! Gore sounded like a second rate huckster, the guy at the dealership who swears he can get me a deal despite my awful credit.

Why am I picking on Nobel Laureate and erstwhile inventor of the Internet, Mr. Al Gore? Gore isn't the disease, but he is a symptom. Green has become the new black, and sustainability has become the vision of the future. And baby, they are selling it.

The problem with the buzz around the concept of sustainability is that it fails to ask some very, very critical questions. The very first being, do we really want to "sustain" anything? The American way of life, characterized by suburbia, the automobile and the acquisition of consumer goods, depends fundamentally on growth. This way of life also relies on the comparative advantages brought out by exploiting labor and materials markets overseas. Globalization, and the resulting goods and market advantages, are not simply energy intensive, they rely on cheap and dense energy. There is no combination of wind, solar, hydrogen, or any other 'clean' technology, that will allow globalization to be 'sustained' in anyway. Petroleum is simply too energy rich. In fact, it is vital to remember that it is the literally explosive energy richness of petroleum that allowed us to build the civilization we live in today.

Of course, it is always easier and more comforting to say that we can save what we are so deeply invested in, rather than suggest that we may need to radically rethink our civilization. Al gore may be eloquent, even persuasive, but the high-priests of the Green Economy are not telling the whole story. They are telling you that if you change the color of the drapes, the structure of the palace will be saved. But the palace is built on a rotting foundation.

Buyer beware . . .

Devil in the details

Special envoy George Mitchell recently held high level talks in the holy land with Benyamin Netanyau. I don't want to spend too much time on "what it all means," these meetings are by now standard, perfunctory events for each successive American administration. Instead, let's look at a couple ok key points.

Mitchell suggested that in exchange for Israel halting settlement activity in the occupied West Bank, America would increase pressure on Iran and it's nuclear proram. This should give pause. Our government should not be offering Israel any incentive to stop settlements. Rather, settlements should viewed and treated for what they are, illegal, inhumane and a major obstacle to any lasting peace. We should not be offering incentive, but demanding a halt to settlements, on moral, and legal grounds. If anything, we should be telling Israel that unless settlement activity stops, we will stop supporting Israel. We should not be encouraging the right behavior, we should demand it.

-- Post From Gulistan

A Hindu and a Jew walk into a bar . . .

I was recently alerted to a news item which reports the sale of surface to air missile systems from an Israeli Defense Contractor to the Government of India. The deal is the most recent in a growing line of Israeli/Indian defense contracts, further solidifying ties between the world's largest democracy, and the garrison state of Israel.

Rafael, the defense contractor in question, is owned by the state of Israel, thus the profits will land directly in the coffers of the government. Clearly, the government of India has no compunction concerning the possibility of these funds being used to further destroy the rights of the Palestinian people. Solidarity from the Indian government is absent. Rather, what we see is a furthering of the agenda of New Delhi, to align itself with the dominant Western powers and use the phantasms of terror as the common narrative thread. While Israelis and Indians have perhaps suffered from terrorist actions in greater proportion than any other states (save open war zones like Iraq and Afghanistan) this level of weaponry is evidence not of anti-terrorist action, but of the projection of military power and regional hegemonic ambitions.

Furthermore, it is no surprise that the Indian government should engage in such activity that blatantly rejects the plight of the Palestinian people. One simply need look at the history of the centre government's reaction to minority struggles within India's own borders. The Sikh struggle in Punjab is but one example. And despite India's own struggle against the British Raj, one gets the distinct notion that the Elites in New Delhi feel that they have been "let into the house" in recent decades, having thrived on globalized trade and information technology. They do not intent to go back, and will align themselves and the fate of the Indian people a regime bent on the elimination of an indigenous people.

Hope lies in the numerous minority groups in India, and creating further solidarity and recognition of struggle between all oppressed people. Sikhs, Palestinians, Assamese, Christians in Orissa and Muslims throughout India, and oppressed peoples across the globe. Time to get free . . .

Cut it

Sometimes James brown is perfect. Does not need a dj treatment. Was meant to dance to in the first place


-- Post From Gulistan

The Young Guard

Is the Fatah movement ready for a change? The recent elections and new central committee membership seems to at least suggest the possibility. Only four of nine "old guard" members were re-elected to the central committee, while all remaining members constitute the emerging "Young Guard." In my mind, three major questions emerge:

1. Barghouti versus Dahlan?: The election of Marwan Barghouti provides perhaps the biggest glimmer of hope in my mind. If anyone on the contemporary scene may be regarded as a Palestinian "Mandela" figure, its Barghouti. The likely successor to Mahmood Abbas, Barghouti currently holds court in an Israeli prison. His work in prison proves he has the ability to unite the next generation of both Hamas and Fatah activists, and many believe that he will be able to carry on that unifying spirit once beyond the prison walls. Barghouti is not simply charismatic and widely admired, he represents a way forward, and has proven that partisanship needn't lead to schism.

Dahlan, on the other hand, is cited by Hamas as a primary motivation for the Gaza coup. Hamas believes that Dahlan's security apparatus threatened Hamas' strength in Gaza and Dahlan would not have stopped until Fatah regained a foothold in the strip, at any cost. Dahlan was supposed to be the wunderkind, the rising star in Fatah. Hamas seizing power in Gaza marks a major failure on Dahlan's part, but he still holds a vital place in the party, and likely will for some time. While he may have had deep personal ties to Hamas through his relationship with the family of al-Rantissi, Dahlan stands as a polarizing and aggressively ambitious figure. Internal unity will be vital for any Fatah success, and I think that will largely be defined by the dynamic between these two men.

Next major question tomorrow . . .

I just finished watching an old PBS which examined the Kitzmiller vs. Dover decision. I know this is old news to many. When Kitzmiller came to national prominence, I willfully ignored the Intelligent Design vs. Evolution debate on the grounds that even the trivial and cursory information I had gleaned on the matter of Intelligent Design proved it to be specious science at best, and thinly veiled Fundamentalist machination at worst. For me, the very existence of the deabte screamed of a kind of madness, the madness of irrational belief.

Consider this the first secular confession of a born-again atheist. Perhaps I have missed the boat a bit, but it has become galringly apparent to me, that we live in a new age of belief. We currently live in a time and place (the post-industrial West) where the availability of knowledge, information, scholarship cultural understadning is greater than ever. The internet and the democritization of technology (while flawed and incomplete) has allowed for the prolifieration of easilty accessible knowledge in a vast number of fields of science, politics and the humanities. In some ways, one could well argue that this should be the most enlightened age in human history.

What we find however, is that these very same tools of technological progress have created a crisis of authority. thoroughly researched, reviewed, contested and revised scientific theory has suddenly been thrust into apparently equal footing with spurious, inherently biased and ideologically motivated pseudo-science. As a result, I dare say, we are becoming a generally less enlightened and continually poorly educated populace.

We are told on an almost daily basis that the "terrorist" pose an existential threat to the physically safety of the United States, as well as a threat to the American way of life. While I do not want to dismiss the danger posed by terrorist organizations, barring the possibility that any such group acquires a nuclear weapon, and the capability to deliver and detonate such a weapoin on U.S. soil, the "existential" threat posed by terrorist group tends to be marginal at best.

Let's not forget, that these terrorists are often described as having some kind of fundamentalist view of the world and religion that justifies their violence and vitriol. Religion can be a dangerous thing. I would argue that one of the greatest threats faced by American civilization is not, in point of fact, Islamic Fundamentalism, but rather Christian Fundamentalists here at home. While countries such as China and India now boast universities that are quickly reaching parity with the West in terms of technical and research sophistication, the heartland of America is being besieged by an ideological virus that would replace critical thinking and intellectual rigor with blind belief in Bronze Age mythology and a world-view that flies completely in the face of hundreds of years of well understood scientific evidence.

Let us be on guard in this new age of belief. Think for yourself, question truths, all truths. It is in this way that human knowledge expands, and that life is advanced. The urge to believe is strong, and faith is a great comfort in a confusing and often cruel world. However, only the open and critically active mind can hope to bring us from the dark to light. It is, in fact, the only thing that ever has.

More later

The Heavy Guns

The Iranian establishment descended upon the Tehran streets in force over the weekend, and the country's de facto leaders, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, responded with ferocity and vicious inflexibility.

I take a moment to honour the fallen, the brave Iranians risking all in the name of justice.

Evidence mounts to reveal the depth of the crisis. In my previous post, I began to explore the current schism in Iranian society, a divide borne from political as well as generational conflict. The vast, and overwhelmingly young Iranian electorate seeks a new direction for the country. The period of cultural appeasement-when President Khatami loosened some of the more draconian restrictions on personal freedom - came to a jarring end during A-jad's first term. And while Iran's nuclear ambitions confer a sense of pride on most Iranians, the country's continued and deepening sense of isolation as a result of the regime's bluster tends to frustrate the young, progressive, urban Iranians. These young Persians (the demographic that largely supports Mousavi) feel that the current regime, just doesn't get it. They understand that a change must come in order to bring Iran fully into the global moment, rather than to retreat to the obscurantism and stagnation of a calcified worldview.

Persian civilization is one of the oldest and richest in human history. So long as the self-styled "retainers of the revolution" continue to stifle the great potential of the Iranian people, another generation of Iranians will be forever cutoff from its rightful and prodigious inheritance.

More later . . . God is Great.

I felt compelled to take an extended break from work today to watch the animated version of Marjane Sateapi's Persepolis. I couldn't help but imagine that the defiant fire of the protagonist burns today in the streets of Tehran.

With guarded optimism, and in the spirit of solidarity, I sing in praise of those who challenge the Iranian status quo. Khas o Khashak, the hour is yours.

The crisis availa itself to viewing through various lenses. The political the most immediate, but the cultural and demographic lends nuance and complexity.




Satrapi reminded me of a significant fact, the relationship Iranians have with Khomeini's revolution changes. With a vast majority of the population currently embracing adulthood, the regime most fears amnesia, amnesia of both the blood and pain of the revolution, and perhaps more importantly the apathy of a generation who accepted basiji and chadors in hope of forgetting. Ultimately brutality only provided half of the fuel to sustain the revolution. The rest came from resignation.

More later. God bless us all . . .


-- Post From My iPhone

Summer Convergence

The season of change that began with the ascendancy of Barack Obama to the highest office in the land stands threatened by a stagnant status quo in the Middle East. This summer we shall witness elections in two vital centers of Middle East contention. The general elections in Lebanon, and the presidential elections in Iran will undoubtedly color the tenor of the Obama administration's Middle East policy and indeed determine, at the very least, the short term future of the region.

VP Biden's recent trip to Lebanon, coupled with Secretary of State Clinton's recent Beirut sojourn has been met, predictably, with suspicion by Nasrallah and the Hezbollah camp. Though it may simply strike us as paranoia, we cannot discount Nasrallah's savvy. In effect, Hezbollah stands at the doorstep of leading a ruling coalition in parliament, and Nasrallah's accusation of U.S. meddling simply enhances his party's stature among the disenfranchised.

Meanwhile, back in the Islamic Republic, Iranians prepare for June presidential elections with Ahmadenijad reprising his role as simple man of the people and heroically defiant enemy of the Great Satan. The particulars of the election and its the candidates involved shall be better explored in a future entry. Suffice it to say, that two factors will play heavy in this election, just as they did in the previous one. The first factor is what brought A-jad to power in the first place, and will indeed be his undoing. The Iranian economy has been and continues to be a shadow of what it really should be. Given the resources available, the general level of education and cultural capital the Republic possesses, it should easily be spoken of in the same sentence as Brazil and India in terms of up and coming nations. However, the Iranians have suffered from bad planning and allocation policies, particularly its investment in distant Latin American countries, while neglecting investment in regional economies, which would undoubtedly yield more productive and efficient long-term interdependancies. The Iranians are losing out on their "now" moment, and the candidate that best points the way out of the morass will surely be the victor.

The other obvious factor, one that plays in both Iranian and Lebanese elections, is the foreign policy factor. The most significant element remains Netanyahu's rise in Israel, and the general shift to the right in Israeli politics. During Netanyahu's visit with President Obama, the Prime Minister's primary concern seemed to be Iranian nuclear and strategic regional ambitions, while the Palestinian issue took a clear back seat. This would very likely push Iranians to the right as well, although the urban middle class may see this election as a way to break with the tradition of isolation. The new generation of Iranians are disconnected from Khomeini and the revolution and may seek a relief from its more isolating elements. The lesson of the last election still looms large: the conservative, largely uneducated rural Iranians will determine the final outcome. The hope held in the west that the progressive, urban Iranians will finally gather the strength to break with the beards has been a perennial dream, perennially deferred.

Legacy of 47

It is a truly remarkable feat, that since the end of the British Raj, India has maintained a relatively stable and well functioning democracy. In a country with such a large, mainly rural and poor population, rife with ethnic, religious and linguistic difference, India's democratic institutions and tradition deserve praise.

Of course, India's modern history has its dark moments, such as the suppression of Sikh rights and the invasion of the Harmandir Sahib complex in 1984. In addition, various Hindu-Right governments have used their influence to stoke communal conflict and violence against Muslims. Its not perfect, but as the elections currently taking place show, India proves that a largely developing and heterogeneous country needn't suffer the pains of dictatorship or obscurantism.

The day Viceroy Mountbatten lowered the Union Jack from Indian soil for the last time, Mohammad Jinnah raised the flag of the believers to the west, in the newly created nation of Pakistan. Since then, a nation built largely on religious homogeneity, Pakistan's relationship with democracy has been uneasy at best. There seems to be an oscillation between resurgent democracy and outright military dictatorship that moves with sine-wave regularity. However, today, as Indians go the polls, Pakistanis are left to deal with a civilian government that has ceaded parts of the country to Sharia Law and Talibinization.

The capitulation of the Swat Valley bodes badly for whatever public confidence Islamabad may have had up to this point. The increasing polarization of the population between moderate, secular forces and Islamic fundamentalists sympathetic to the Taliban's obscurantist vision of the faith, is being felt not only in the far flung provinces of the northwest, but also in major urban centers such as Lahore and Karachi. In the meantime, Washington has unequivocally raised the level of rhetoric and has just stopped short of saying that all would be done to prevent Islamabad from falling.

Pakistan is at a critical juncture in its history. It is unlikely that The Obama administration will sit back and continue to let Zardari's administration fail to reign in Taliban advances. If the ISI still has designs on Afghanistan as an imperial appendage of Pakistan, then it can only be done with implicit coorperation with murderous and regressive elements within the Islamist movement, which will ultimately spill its bile into the Pakistani Military and eventually the civil administration as well. The threat to India is perahps greatest, and nothing should frighten the West more than a conflict between an unstable Pakistan and an ascendant India, both nuclear states with a 60 plus year unsettled grudge.

As I have stated before, Pakistan will be the first serious international crisis of the Obama administration, excluding those he inherited. The legacy of 1947 is coming to a head. The final outcome of this endgame will likely effect not only South Asia, but the Middle East and the West as well. May God bless us all . . .

The wretched of the earth.

The ICC warrant on Omar al Bashir resulted in demonstrations in the streets of Khartoum. Countless Bashir apologists turned out to reinforce the Sudanese presidents defiance in the face of what he has characterized as "colonialist" actions on the part of the West as represented by the ICC. When such loaded and contentious language is bandied about, it becomes necessary to analyze the claims.

It is vital to understand that the formal colonial period did not end that long ago. And it is clear that neo-colonial structures and enterprises do persist today. Israeli occupation of Palestine, US occupation of Iraq, IMF and world bank lending and debt restructuring across the globe, represent just a few examples.

As Fanon surmised, the liberation of the colonized opens space for the ascendance of tribalist and obscurantist parties, who present a challenge to the native bourgeouis parties that assume power immediately after liberation. The post-colonial process is still very much unfolding in much of the world, as we see a generation in many African and middle eatern nations struggle with the fading images of the heroes of the liberation and the ascendancy of the obscurantists.

It is a sad memorial to the great non-aligned leaders -Nasser, Nehru or Tito- and to the revolutionary liberators like Lumumba, that Bashir claims he is the victim of colonial intervention. This man who has presided over systematic and brutal extermination of black Sudanese in Darfur, a slaughter sponsored by China, is nothing short of a war criminal. If we allow such individuals to use colonial intervention as a defense we risk allowing legitimate claims of colonialism and neo-colonialism to be sullied. This must be resisted on all fronts.


-- Post From My iPhone