![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkatRead two, no make that three interesting articles in The Atlantic Monthy - which is basically a more conservative or moderate version of The New Yorker - it has articles, short stories, etc - but from a different slant. Yet not as conservative as The National Review.
Quite interesting mag actually - doesn't rant, reports evenly, not as much editorializing and looks at both sides of the issue. I'm like my Dad - I like to look at all the angles.
The articles are:
The Agenda: A War to Start All Wars - How the Middle East looks like Europe circa World War I by Niall Ferguson - who states that the problem with the Irag war was it created a civil war which has become the biggest since 1945, when Eastern Europe blew up "with the kind of escalating tit-for-tat killings and ethnic cleansing that can last for years, even decades." And that:
the critical question today is whether the current civil war could spread beyond Iraq's borders, engulfing its neighbors or sparking a regional war.
He compares the Iraq scenario to Central Africa citing how the ethnic battles in Rwanda ended up extending across the entire Congo resulting in the deaths of 3.3 million people. Think about that for a minute. 100,000 people were killed in Yugoslavia's ethnic civil wars - but that is minor to the number of deaths in Africa. But before we get all huffy and think this hasn't happened before - Ferguson begins to describe what happened in prior centuries in Europe, Eastern Europe, and even the Middle East - this part of the article intrigued me.
Sixty Years ago, Central and Eastern Europe was entering the final phase of a succession of wars and civil wars that originated with the disintegration of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Before 1914 the Habsburg lands had been characterized by high levels of ethnic heterogeneity. Consequently the transition from empire to nation-states of the post-World War I era proved painful in the extreme. Two minorities were especially ill-placed in the new order of the 1920's: The Germans and the Jews. The former fought back against their minority status in places like Czechoslovakia and Poland, and under the leadership of a messianic Austrian, temporarially created a Greater German Empire. The latter were among that bloodthirsty empire's prinicipal victims. Only with the expulsion of the Germans from Central and Eastern Europe and the creation of truly homogeneous but Soviet-controlled nation states was peace restored. It is no coincidence that the one country that remained both heterogenuous and independent was Yugoslavia - was in the 1990s the scene of Europes last great ethnic conflict. (p.30)
He goes on to suggest that the Middle East may be headed in the same direction causing a potential World War - and that every time these things blow up countries on the periphery such as Saudia Arabia, Jordan and Israel will get affected. Note when it happened in the 1920's England and France got hurt - the violence spewed over. And what is happening in Africa. If he's right? Ghod. No wonder Israel is petrified. I'd be petrified. It's really the only stable one their ethnic wise - well if you ignore the Palestinians, the rest are divided entities - Sunni's and Shiites - who have a great deal in common with Germans vs. Jews. I wonder when human beings will learn that killing because they happen to think, look, act, and behave differently than you is just plain dumb and gets you nowhere? Probably after we destroy the planet? Maybe not even then.
Depressing but interesting article all in all.
Mosied on to another one - this about the fiscal health of the nation. Unlike the New Yorker, the Atlantic Monthly has lots of short but pithy articles.
The Rancor Divident - The new Democratic Congress just might help the White House mend the country's broken fiscal policy -
In this article, Clive Crook points out that every time the Congress and White House were ruled by separate parties, the deficit has decreased and spending has decreased. Apparently, "Divided government" according to William Niskanen of the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, "is, curiously, less divisive. It's also cheaper. The basic reason for this is simple: when one party proposes drastic or foolish measures - including spending windfalls designed to reward partisian supporters - the other party can obstruct them." What fascinated me about the article though was the comparision made between the spending in the Lyndon Johnson administration (the last time before the Bush Jr. Admin when one party controlled both houses of Congress and the White House) and the Bush Jr. Admin - apparently they were the most costly in our nation's history, while the Clinton/Bush Sr. and Eisenhower regimes were less expensive - but had divided houses.
Next - a bit on the history of the smoking ban - did you know they've banned smoking in public before? Even executed people for smoking?
In 1624 (because the sneezing too closely resembled sexual ecstasy and well, the Vatican just could not have that. But it was repelled by a new Pope who liked snuff),
1633 (Ottoman Empire - the Sultan executed people for smoking - makes today's bans seem pretty lame in comparision),
1634 (Russia this round - and you get whipped, flogged, a slit nose and a one-way trip to Siberia - apparently Siberia's hell because everyone gets sent there in Russia if they've screwed up),
1646 (Massachustes prohibits people from doing it except when on a journey and at least five miles away from any town - or one smoke a day but not in the company of others - the irony? In the 1700's its the major consumer and producer of tobacco), (Jeeze - The 1600s were a bad decade for tobacco manufacturers.)
1891 (Iran - they ban Shiites from smoking because of the shah's generous tobacco concession to England - this sparks a Tobacco Rebellion (damn Nicotine is mighty addictive) - the business dealings with the Brits are revoked, Iran's Shiites happily resume smoking.)
1895 (North Dakota - along with 14 other states propelled by the national temperance movement. Antismoking crusader Lucy Gaston announces her candidancy for President in 1920 (so a woman has run before Hillary, cool) but Warren Harding get the nomination which is decided by Republican Party bosses in a smoke filled room) after this all smoke free legislation except the ban of sale to minors is repealed.
1942 - (Germany - Hitler banned it calling it "the wrath of the Red Man against the White Man, vengeance for giving him hard liquor." (LOL! That one made me laugh, because you know Hitler might have been on to something - considering more people die from tobacco than alcohol consumption at the moment. ) )
I don't know, but I disagree with the Atlantic Monthly on this issue, I think the bans on smoking may stick this round since the reasons for them have to do with dying of lung cancer and other horrendous diseases - by second-hand smoke or smoking, not silly politics. But that's just me.
Fourth up?
Closing the God Gap: How a pair of Democratic strategists are helping candidates talk about their faith by Hanna Rosin.
This one talks about how a bunch of Democrates stole the votes of evangelical Christians from the Republicans. What struck me most about this article is this excerpt from a speech by Ohio governor - Democrat Ted Strickland: The next time some politician, including me, starts preaching to you a sermon on values, look us in the eye and ask us point-blank: Do your values include doing everything in your power to make sure that my hard work translates into a decent living for my family, that we have access to affordable health care, that I can offer my kids a solid, affordable education as far as their abilities will take them? Exactly. Thank you. And bright move.
Oh, and I've figured out a way to chapters of literary works emailed to me for free. Go to: dailylit.com - I'm doing "Little Women by Louisa May Alcott" and "Dream Psychology" by Sigmund Frued. You can also do Ulysess by James Joyce but having read Ulysses (book version) I don't recommend it. Joyce requires more attention than an email.
Quite interesting mag actually - doesn't rant, reports evenly, not as much editorializing and looks at both sides of the issue. I'm like my Dad - I like to look at all the angles.
The articles are:
The Agenda: A War to Start All Wars - How the Middle East looks like Europe circa World War I by Niall Ferguson - who states that the problem with the Irag war was it created a civil war which has become the biggest since 1945, when Eastern Europe blew up "with the kind of escalating tit-for-tat killings and ethnic cleansing that can last for years, even decades." And that:
the critical question today is whether the current civil war could spread beyond Iraq's borders, engulfing its neighbors or sparking a regional war.
He compares the Iraq scenario to Central Africa citing how the ethnic battles in Rwanda ended up extending across the entire Congo resulting in the deaths of 3.3 million people. Think about that for a minute. 100,000 people were killed in Yugoslavia's ethnic civil wars - but that is minor to the number of deaths in Africa. But before we get all huffy and think this hasn't happened before - Ferguson begins to describe what happened in prior centuries in Europe, Eastern Europe, and even the Middle East - this part of the article intrigued me.
Sixty Years ago, Central and Eastern Europe was entering the final phase of a succession of wars and civil wars that originated with the disintegration of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Before 1914 the Habsburg lands had been characterized by high levels of ethnic heterogeneity. Consequently the transition from empire to nation-states of the post-World War I era proved painful in the extreme. Two minorities were especially ill-placed in the new order of the 1920's: The Germans and the Jews. The former fought back against their minority status in places like Czechoslovakia and Poland, and under the leadership of a messianic Austrian, temporarially created a Greater German Empire. The latter were among that bloodthirsty empire's prinicipal victims. Only with the expulsion of the Germans from Central and Eastern Europe and the creation of truly homogeneous but Soviet-controlled nation states was peace restored. It is no coincidence that the one country that remained both heterogenuous and independent was Yugoslavia - was in the 1990s the scene of Europes last great ethnic conflict. (p.30)
He goes on to suggest that the Middle East may be headed in the same direction causing a potential World War - and that every time these things blow up countries on the periphery such as Saudia Arabia, Jordan and Israel will get affected. Note when it happened in the 1920's England and France got hurt - the violence spewed over. And what is happening in Africa. If he's right? Ghod. No wonder Israel is petrified. I'd be petrified. It's really the only stable one their ethnic wise - well if you ignore the Palestinians, the rest are divided entities - Sunni's and Shiites - who have a great deal in common with Germans vs. Jews. I wonder when human beings will learn that killing because they happen to think, look, act, and behave differently than you is just plain dumb and gets you nowhere? Probably after we destroy the planet? Maybe not even then.
Depressing but interesting article all in all.
Mosied on to another one - this about the fiscal health of the nation. Unlike the New Yorker, the Atlantic Monthly has lots of short but pithy articles.
The Rancor Divident - The new Democratic Congress just might help the White House mend the country's broken fiscal policy -
In this article, Clive Crook points out that every time the Congress and White House were ruled by separate parties, the deficit has decreased and spending has decreased. Apparently, "Divided government" according to William Niskanen of the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, "is, curiously, less divisive. It's also cheaper. The basic reason for this is simple: when one party proposes drastic or foolish measures - including spending windfalls designed to reward partisian supporters - the other party can obstruct them." What fascinated me about the article though was the comparision made between the spending in the Lyndon Johnson administration (the last time before the Bush Jr. Admin when one party controlled both houses of Congress and the White House) and the Bush Jr. Admin - apparently they were the most costly in our nation's history, while the Clinton/Bush Sr. and Eisenhower regimes were less expensive - but had divided houses.
Next - a bit on the history of the smoking ban - did you know they've banned smoking in public before? Even executed people for smoking?
In 1624 (because the sneezing too closely resembled sexual ecstasy and well, the Vatican just could not have that. But it was repelled by a new Pope who liked snuff),
1633 (Ottoman Empire - the Sultan executed people for smoking - makes today's bans seem pretty lame in comparision),
1634 (Russia this round - and you get whipped, flogged, a slit nose and a one-way trip to Siberia - apparently Siberia's hell because everyone gets sent there in Russia if they've screwed up),
1646 (Massachustes prohibits people from doing it except when on a journey and at least five miles away from any town - or one smoke a day but not in the company of others - the irony? In the 1700's its the major consumer and producer of tobacco), (Jeeze - The 1600s were a bad decade for tobacco manufacturers.)
1891 (Iran - they ban Shiites from smoking because of the shah's generous tobacco concession to England - this sparks a Tobacco Rebellion (damn Nicotine is mighty addictive) - the business dealings with the Brits are revoked, Iran's Shiites happily resume smoking.)
1895 (North Dakota - along with 14 other states propelled by the national temperance movement. Antismoking crusader Lucy Gaston announces her candidancy for President in 1920 (so a woman has run before Hillary, cool) but Warren Harding get the nomination which is decided by Republican Party bosses in a smoke filled room) after this all smoke free legislation except the ban of sale to minors is repealed.
1942 - (Germany - Hitler banned it calling it "the wrath of the Red Man against the White Man, vengeance for giving him hard liquor." (LOL! That one made me laugh, because you know Hitler might have been on to something - considering more people die from tobacco than alcohol consumption at the moment. ) )
I don't know, but I disagree with the Atlantic Monthly on this issue, I think the bans on smoking may stick this round since the reasons for them have to do with dying of lung cancer and other horrendous diseases - by second-hand smoke or smoking, not silly politics. But that's just me.
Fourth up?
Closing the God Gap: How a pair of Democratic strategists are helping candidates talk about their faith by Hanna Rosin.
This one talks about how a bunch of Democrates stole the votes of evangelical Christians from the Republicans. What struck me most about this article is this excerpt from a speech by Ohio governor - Democrat Ted Strickland: The next time some politician, including me, starts preaching to you a sermon on values, look us in the eye and ask us point-blank: Do your values include doing everything in your power to make sure that my hard work translates into a decent living for my family, that we have access to affordable health care, that I can offer my kids a solid, affordable education as far as their abilities will take them? Exactly. Thank you. And bright move.
Oh, and I've figured out a way to chapters of literary works emailed to me for free. Go to: dailylit.com - I'm doing "Little Women by Louisa May Alcott" and "Dream Psychology" by Sigmund Frued. You can also do Ulysess by James Joyce but having read Ulysses (book version) I don't recommend it. Joyce requires more attention than an email.
