Sep 22nd, 2006 by ravi
WikiSyntax’ish for Ecto

If you use the Ecto blogging client you might find my script LuckyLink (link below) of interest. It supports Wiki style syntax markup of text, which it will perform an operation on. Currently there is only one supported operation: Google "I'm Feeling Lucky" links.

Usage:

Simple markup:

  • Enclose text to be linked in [[ ]]

    e.g: [[ Noam Chomsky ]]

    This will generate a link (to the site returned by Google's I'm Feeling Lucky) around the text Noam Chomsky.

You can specify something different to search for using the following two variations (in both cases only "display text" will be retained):

  • [[ display text | search text ]]

    e.g: [[ Chomsky's book | site:amazon.com Hegemony Survival ]]

    This will use the part after the | to do the search and wrap the first part (Chomsky's book) in the link returned.

  • [[ display text |+ additional search text ]]

    e.g: A few bits from [[ Chomsky's Hegemony |+ excerpts ]]

    This will use both the first part and the second part, together, for the search, but only use the first part for the linked text.

  • Spaces after/before opening/closing brackets and around | and |+ are optional.
  • Text can't have a | of course.

Some words of warning

  • The syntax supported by the script is bound to change as I flesh it out.
  • This is a 0.001 alpha script and a fairly trivial one. Use at your own risk.
  • This script requires Perl and 'wget' (use DarwinPorts or search for "wget for Windows")
  • In Ecto, see Scripts => What is This?, for installation help.

Link to script: LuckyLink-1.pl Read the full post and comments »
Sep 22nd, 2006 by ravi
The extreme sport of Jingoism

Great article on Sports Illustrated by Frank Deford on the short-sightedness of jingoistic lack of public interest in non-American sports or stars:

If it's not our star, our sport, U.S. doesn't care

[…]

[W]hen Federer, the defending champion, four-time Wimbledon winner, played a key match at the U.S. Open a couple of weeks ago, the U.S. Tennis Association put him on the lounge court, while scheduling an American, James Blake, in the stadium. Blake, to use that wonderful British word, is a "useful" player; Federer may be the greatest artist in the history of his sport.

But Federer's slighting is what's to be expected here. How strange that we are such a narrow, jingoistic sports country — we, this cherished land of immigrants. If the U.S. Tennis Association was in charge of music instead of tennis, Placido Domingo would be singing at a suburban Ramada Inn piano bar while Snoop Dogg worked Lincoln Center. Gee, even Woods dared root for Federer. Is it against the Patriot Act if I want to cheer for Vijay Singh or Ernie Els in some golf tournament?

[…]

It's always dangerously facile to make political analogies out of sport, but it's hard to ignore the point that our current American tendency toward arrogance and imperiousness seems to be reflected in the way we look at international sport. We've been assured we're best, so if somebody else wins it must be some kind of aberration.

[…]

[ Link ]

Read the full post and comments »
Sep 21st, 2006 by ravi
Oedipal Throes? (part 1)

The title is intentionally polemical and silly — I do not really believe that psycho-analysis is a valid form of argument. I might as well explain it though: among a segment of liberals (and I mean liberal, not "left") there is a virulent anti-Chomsky attitude that is difficult to understand'. Examples are the blogger Duncan Black who calls himself Atrios, Michael Berube, and Siva Vaidyanathan. The psycho-analytical explanation I was offered elsewhere, for this irrational syndrome, is some form of Oedipus complex, triggered in particular by the attack on pomo in the 90s, in which Chomsky played a fringe part. Even that doesn't explain much though, since none of these individuals inherits Chomsky's brand (analytical, detailed, factual, and logically argued) of leftism (though I am sure they are capable of such).

I have posted comments on Siva's blog in response to his one-liners: here, here. I do not believe any response is needed to Atrios.

Berube, writing in his blog, on Chomsky's review of the Milosevic-Kosovo-NATO affair, describes Chomsky's words as a "pack of lies". Below is part 1 of my analysis of Berube's blog post:

Berube writes that Chomsky's words on the attack on Yugoslavia are "a pack of lies". Nowhere in his piece does he offer any significant data or reasoning to explain why. Instead he gets into guilt by association by moving on to Herman and Johnstone and then quoting various others' opinions on those matters.

Now the word "lies" in his post is a link to someone else's page about the link between Milosevic and Srebrenica. Other words link to similar reports on the exodus of Albanians from their region, and on the atrocities against them.

However, here is what he quotes of Chomsky:

"Remember, the Milosevic Tribunal began with Kosovo, right in the middle of the US-British bombing in late '99 . . . Now if you take a look at that indictment, with a single exception, every charge was for crimes after the bombing.

There's a reason for that. The bombing was undertaken with the anticipation explicit [that] it was going to lead to large-scale atrocities in response. As it did. Now there were terrible atrocities, but they were after the bombings. In fact, if you look at the British parliamentary inquiry, they actually reached the astonishing conclusion that, until January 1999, most of the crimes committed in Kosovo were attributed to the KLA guerrillas.

So later they added charges [against Milosevic] about the Balkans, but it wasn't going to be an easy case to make. The worst crime was Srebrenica but, unfortunately for the International Tribunal, there was an intensive investigation by the Dutch government, which was primarily responsible their troops were there and what they concluded was that not only did Milosevic not order it, but he had no knowledge of it. And he was horrified when he heard about it. So it was going to be pretty hard to make that charge stick."

Berube does not state anywhere in his article as to where the sites he links to show that the below claims by Chomsky are incorrect:

  • Indictment charges were for crimes after the bombing.
  • British parliamentary inquiry attributed most crimes comitted in Kosovo to the KLA.
  • Dutch government found that Milosevic did not order, nor had any knowledge of Srebrenica.

To show any of these incorrect, Berube (and his links) will have to show:

  • Majority of indictment charges included crimes before bombing
  • British parliamentary inquiry did not reach stated conclusion
  • Dutch government did not reach stated conclusion

But let us go even further and do Berube's work for him i.e., weed through his hints (links) and find relevant sections. The link for the text "lies" points to a report by one organization (Institute for War and Peace Reporting) and their finding + *analysis* (not any determination of fact). Here, interestingly is what the report says:

Under the Serbian constitution, the president of Serbia, a post that Milosevic held at the time, is directly responsible for the actions taken by his republic's police force.

That this is the weak form in which the guilt of Milosevic can be established comes further below (note that I do not disagree that this makes him guilty, but most important to the argument, it does not in any way disprove Chomsky's point, and aids it by suggesting that lack of direct knowledge or involvement by Milosevic, its finding, nonetheless is not enough to save him from prosecution). More:

Whether Milosevic knew that his police were sent to participate in the attack on the town is unclear. If he did, then the document will play a key role in proving genocide charges. If he didn't, it will still provide important evidence of crimes against humanity. For the former, intent has to be established; for the latter responsibility is enough.

The first sentence shows that this page in no way at all refutes Chomsky's statement. More:

A six-year, 6 million US dollar investigation by the Dutch government's Institute for War Documentation concluded in a 7,000-page report last April found no evidence linking the Belgrade government to the Srebrenica massacre.

Wait a second. This is the page that Berube links to under the
melodramatic word "lies"? This exactly substantiates Chomsky's words! Some more:

However, the document IWPR obtained clearly shows that members of Serbia's MUP were operating out of the key Bosnian Serb military stronghold of Trnovo, just outside of Sarajevo, and that they were transferred to Srebrenica and placed under the command of Bosnian Serb police colonel Ljubomir Borovcanin.

So IWPR has a document that leads them to think differently than the Dutch. This makes Chomsky a liar?

Let us in fact give Berube all the rope we have. Let us say he reads Chomsky to be explicitly saying that: there were no large-scale atrocities before the US-led attack and that Milosevic was not involved in and was unaware of Srebrenica.

This does not make Chomsky a Milosevic defender of course. As the cliche goes, context is everything, and the context of Chomsky's general critique of this matter is the motivation, legality and justification of the US-led attack on Yugoslavia. In that context, Chomsky is not examining if Milosevic is pure as milk but whether the US reasoning against him holds.

Now, back to Berube interpretation of Chomsky we have constructed just above: how does Chomsky make such a claim? He provides two pieces of information: the findings of a British parliamentary inquiry (atrocities), and the findings of the Dutch government (Srebrenica). Both fairly official sources which if anything would have a bias towards substantiating the US-NATO story. What is the hole that Berube finds in this? Presenting an alternate view to the British inquiry or the Danish findings does not necessarily negate them, far less make Chomsky a liar.

The thing is: Berube could have stopped at saying Chomsky is incorrect (which Chomsky is not, as Berube's own links demonstrate). The word "lies" is intentional grandstanding, and in this case, quite unsubstantiated, especially since there is one other burden to meet to jump from claiming inaccuracy to calling Chomsky a liar: intentionality (on the part of Chomsky).

[Part 2 coming up shortly]

Update: Read Part 2 here.

Read the full post and comments »
Sep 20th, 2006 by ravi
Breaking: NYT still scared of Chomsky

The big news of the day is Hugo Chavez’s dramatic speech at the U.N, which the New York Times reports here: Chávez Calls Bush ‘the Devil’ in U.N. Speech. Funny thing though: Chavez started, ended and based his speech on Noam Chomsky’s writing, in particular, his book Hegemony or Survival, though you wouldn’t know that if you only read the NYT article. What is it about Chomsky that scares the elite media? That he refuses to play their pseudo-objectivity game?

Also, I see both on NYT and the BBC (among other outlets) Chavez is referred to as “left-wing”. Would these publications then call George Bush “right-wing”: George Bush, the right-wing president of the USA, has a history of failed enterprises.


[ Link ]

Read the full post and comments »
Sep 20th, 2006 by bookie
Links and News [2006.09.20]

blogmarks.net

Read the full post and comments »
Sep 19th, 2006 by ravi
The stars and 2008

So the DLC wants to recruit Bloomberg in the face of the polarizing option of Hillary Clinton on one hand and the positive name recognition of McCain and Giuiliani on the other. Plus they (DLC) are probably peeing in their pants with worries of the return of Al Gore. On another front we have Colin Powell finally making some noises (this is a man who, at least in 2004, had a 71% positive image, and only a 10% negative one — WSJ/NBC). Can presidential hopefuls afford to not have Powell on their ticket? Could we see something as weird as a Democratic ticket of Bloomberg/Powell? Nah!

Read the full post and comments »
Sep 18th, 2006 by bookie
Links and News [2006.09.18]

blogmarks.net

Read the full post and comments »
Sep 11th, 2006 by ravi
Your tax $ at work: torture insurance

WaPo says:

Worried CIA Officers Buy Legal Insurance

CIA counterterrorism officers have signed up in growing numbers for a government-reimbursed, private insurance plan that would pay their civil judgments and legal expenses if they are sued or charged with criminal wrongdoing, according to current and former intelligence officials and others with knowledge of the program.

The new enrollments reflect heightened anxiety at the CIA that officers may be vulnerable to accusations they were involved in abuse, torture, human rights violations and other misconduct, including wrongdoing related to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. They worry that they will not have Justice Department representation in court or congressional inquiries, the officials said.

The anxieties stem partly from public controversy about a system of secret CIA prisons in which detainees were subjected to harsh interrogation methods, including temperature extremes and simulated drowning. The White House contends the methods were legal, but some CIA officers have worried privately that they may have violated international law or domestic criminal statutes.

[…]

Isn’t government funded private insurance a wonderful thing? Perhaps they offer similar plans for al Qaeda?

[ Link ]

Read the full post and comments »
Sep 8th, 2006 by ravi
A stinging obituary

As the world suffers through another "Diana moment" (and I think the analogy is apt, though not in the manner intended by those who have suggested it), Germaine Greer, writing in the Guardian, brings some perspective to the death of animal clown Steve Irwin:

What Irwin never seemed to understand was that animals need space. The one lesson any conservationist must labour to drive home is that habitat loss is the principal cause of species loss. There was no habitat, no matter how fragile or finely balanced, that Irwin hesitated to barge into, trumpeting his wonder and amazement to the skies. There was not an animal he was not prepared to manhandle. Every creature he brandished at the camera was in distress. Every snake badgered by Irwin was at a huge disadvantage, with only a single possible reaction to its terrifying situation, which was to strike. Easy enough to avoid, if you know what’s coming. Even my cat knew that much. Those of us who live with snakes, as I do with no fewer than 12 front-fanged venomous snake species in my bit of Queensland rainforest, know that they will get out of our way if we leave them a choice. Some snakes are described as aggressive, but, if you’re a snake, unprovoked aggression doesn’t make sense. Snakes on a plane only want to get off. But Irwin was an entertainer, a 21st-century version of a lion-tamer, with crocodiles instead of lions.

In 2004, Irwin was accused of illegally encroaching on the space of penguins, seals and humpback whales in Antarctica, where he was filming a documentary called Ice Breaker. An investigation by the Australian Environmental Department resulted in no action being taken, which is not surprising seeing that John Howard, the prime minister, made sure that Irwin was one of the guests invited to a "gala barbecue" for George Bush a few months before. Howard is now Irwin’s chief mourner, which is only fair, seeing that Irwin announced that Howard is the greatest leader the world has ever seen.

The animal world has finally taken its revenge on Irwin, but probably not before a whole generation of kids in shorts seven sizes too small has learned to shout in the ears of animals with hearing 10 times more acute than theirs, determined to become millionaire animal-loving zoo-owners in their turn.

The response to Greer has been shrill, as can be expected, and rational… or rather not, falling back to the same old criticisms about her being a "man-hater" (comment on digg), "feminist bitch" (Tailrank), a has-been, etc. Really incisive stuff!

Hmm! What could be the reason for this manner of response? At The Age, Tracee Hutchison takes a guess:

If Steve Irwin’s story was a celebration of the boy who wouldn’t grow up, then Greer’s is a modern equivalent to the witch-hunts of Salem.

The outpouring of grief at Irwin’s death has been matched only by the outpouring of vitriol poured on Greer. It has been astounding. Men, mostly, have lined her up and taken aim with the kind of venom you would associate with the kind of snake Irwin was most fond of handling.

And the message has been heard loud and clear; if you’re a woman of a certain age in this country – and a childless one at that – don’t you dare step out of the shadows and shout out that the emperor might not be wearing any clothes. You will be shouted down and marginalised and your situation will be thrown back at you as a weapon.

[…]

Very little of the anti-intellectual hot air blown about this week has been about what Germaine Greer may or may not have thought about Steve Irwin. It had everything to do with a dominant male power-base telling women to be seen and not heard. Of marginalising a particular kind of woman and reducing us to condition and circumstance. Of reminding those of us who like to speak our mind to watch our step, to remember our place and to shut up and agree with the menfolk. We are all a lot poorer for the unsightly fallout.

Men behaving badly defending other men behaving badly? Nah! Seems impossible!

Read the full post and comments »

  • lowest price cialis 20mg
  • perché la disfunzione erettile
  • Disfunzione erettile
  • Pages

    Categories

    Activism

    Bookmarks

    Logic

    Orgs

    Philosophy